Post by: paulggriffiths on 23/09/2017 12:17:52
Why The Sun At Noon Appears Above Our Heads.png (75.4 kB . 2032x1352 - viewed 8531 times)Seems light is affected by gravity, atmosphere produces a lens, objects appear smaller at distances as our eyes have lenses and only see light direct. P.G Griffiths 23 September 2017
Add in the travel of Mars and guess there's a short cut to Mars.
Mars is not where you see it.
Post by: Colin2B on 23/09/2017 14:25:19
If you are just going to make statements the post will be removed from this section
Post by: paulggriffiths on 23/09/2017 15:26:57
Please repost this as a question on a science topic.
If you are just going to make statements the post will be removed from this section
A forum is a place of discussion, a statement or question and removal of such is not a true refection of the standard of the forum or in colin's case "Moderation may be erasing future science".
While on the subject of moderation, are you checking each post with an advert thus increasing your revenue?
Griffiths, mostly Professors or Rugby Players... try Triball.
Post by: evan_au on 23/09/2017 21:10:15
Quote from: paulggriffiths
Add in the travel of Mars and guess there's a short cut to Mars.There are many short-cuts to Mars - but they mostly use a lot more energy (ie more fuel=more cost) than the traditional Hohman transfer orbit.
For a trip to Mars, it's a tradeoff between fuel needed for a faster trip vs the duration/radiation exposure and air/food/water to get humans there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit#Application_to_interplanetary_travel
Post by: paulggriffiths on 24/09/2017 03:31:59
Quote from: paulggriffithsAdd in the travel of Mars and guess there's a short cut to Mars.There are many short-cuts to Mars - but they mostly use a lot more energy (ie more fuel=more cost) than the traditional Hohman transfer orbit.
For a trip to Mars, it's a tradeoff between fuel needed for a faster trip vs the duration/radiation exposure and air/food/water to get humans there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit#Application_to_interplanetary_travel
First invented by robin hood.
There are 2 ways to Mars actually, with and without this one. Tell me more and ill either call you a square with round corners(so you don't hurt yourself) or ill applaud you.
They did say they finally got there to mars. Meaning it wasn't that easy.
Call this "Griffiths's Sun" and ill remember you. Do an internet search for "why is the Sun at noon above our heads?"
It is not accepted gravity bends light as of yet because Red-Shift theory would possibly then fail.
Red-Shift theory to me is impossible to be calculated as "how do you know the distance if you don't know it's size?" And vice-versa. Remember this. If they say "There always the same size" then one thing I can think of is "Is it the same thing?"(Don't quote me on that).
Post by: paulggriffiths on 24/09/2017 09:30:52
This is real strange, I can't currently work this out what so ever to the semi-amusing question "Am I the only one here?" and "Did I invent the sun in order to see?". Or in your case "Am I reading this text for something to do?"
Ill call this "many aware".
It's either something else or the earth isn't actually round Something like the universe is not 3D, its sphereD?
What would sphereD be to many point views in space?
Post by: paulggriffiths on 24/09/2017 10:49:42
Well,
dark blue is 3 points in space.
Light blue is the 3 points in a different dimension.
Green is the 3 points in either the same or different dimension?
Are we inside the sun? Somewhere to nowhere.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 24/09/2017 11:47:12
Giving myself odds of 2/1.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 24/09/2017 12:18:33
Or a perfect flat non-lens camera.
...There could be so many beings that happen to be looking that you are always being looked at.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 24/09/2017 16:27:49
If light is not affected by gravity then how above our heads for everyone and why not an odd looking shape or brighter the left side of the sun?
If the atmosphere is not a lens then why the Sun appear so small?
If the Sun is gas then probably little gravity.
Why The Sun At Noon Appears Above Our Heads2.png (7.38 kB . 1511x682 - viewed 7837 times)It's quite difficult to guess the Sun's real distance... the order of the planets?
2 rockets please with a camera above and below.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 24/09/2017 21:42:52
Tasty.
Items... Postcode quality? I purchased a quality looking swivel chair to be king of design. Back cushion was awful.
I would comment on the price of a brick being only 54p, but I won't. (About 10,000 bricks at about £5000 for nice 4 bed house). Got a million pounds? How about a 800 rooms?
Minimum wage started about 15 years ago at about £5.50. So today I would estimate £16.50. That being cost of average items doubling in 10 years.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/09/2017 22:31:56
Post by: paulggriffiths on 24/09/2017 22:39:09
Does anyone have a clue what paulggriffiths is on about?
Don't know how to take your statement. Please continue I'm here...
Surely you know...
May be you should stick to consuming your chemistry?
May be your 10,000 message will tell you. Will you remember?
Stop looking at my Sun.
I also hope you don't get your hover license for my Magnetic Oscillating Impact Hover Engine.
MOIHE(c) Ill blatantly sue your ass for any damages or my time, what a beautiful name.
MOIHE.png (349.22 kB . 513x260 - viewed 7781 times)It all started when I placed a spindle on my finger and gave the wheel a spin, aged 1.5
(the friction against the air could work if I create a partial shield.)
...The truth is it was the first time I went outside and believed my father was by my side, I had this thought I needed to prove I was clever... Give your kid a wheel..."Show me your clever"
Post by: paulggriffiths on 25/09/2017 08:28:18
Post by: paulggriffiths on 25/09/2017 14:05:29
I don't believe poor people should eat poor food.
Tasty.
Items... Postcode quality? I purchased a quality looking swivel chair to be king of design. Back cushion was awful.
I would comment on the price of a brick being only 54p, but I won't. (About 10,000 bricks at about £5000 for nice 4 bed house. That's £30 a brick overall for a house). Got a million pounds? How about a 800 rooms?
Minimum wage started about 15 years ago at about £5.50. So today I would estimate £16.50. That being cost of average items doubling in 10 years.
Live in total quality.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 25/09/2017 16:01:57
May be the Sun emits massive photon and when it hits your window, some of it goes in to your room?
When it scatters, there's your photons.
The scattering of the sun makes it glow?
Black absorbs light, white reflects light and colours, there's a lot to photon.
Something here about some of it absorbs, some of it reflects and some of it glows.
What would a perfect reflective metal or otherwise look like? A mirror that you can't see?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/09/2017 17:36:08
Does anyone have a clue what paulggriffiths is on about?
Post by: paulggriffiths on 25/09/2017 19:36:57
MagneticOsscilatingImpactHoverEngine :')
OutwardPistonsChamberEngine
WheelEngine
StationaryRoadVechicleThruster&VehicleSpringRechargeSystem
VariableDiskGear
MovingCatsEyes&RoadMarkingLighting
OilExhaustFilter
KeepStationaryVehicleSuspension
RingsMotor
StepOnCharger
VariableSpeedAntiTyreWearSteering
NuclearEnergyCircularPressureElectricityGenerator
2AdvancedPropellers
FlapsBirdPlane
MoonOctavesSpeaker
DigitalLightPotentiometer
"GoldGlass"WindowFrames
WindowLCDDisplay
VacuumInsulatonPanels
MultiLayerWeaveCloth
VirusFreeComputerPlatform
SpinLockCardLogIn
MultiViewerVariableAngleTV
SurroundTVProjector
InfaredShadowWallInteraction
MultiLayerTVDisplay
True3DRodsDisplay
ReflectiveGoldAndSilverInLCDDisplays
RealityGlassesPlatformGame
RealityGalassesWatchHandPosition
Watch3DProjectionDisplay
Processor&MemoryCartrageComputer
HardwareTouchScreenGridGUI
LivePredictSportsGaming
ParamedicEquipmentDeliveryDrone
Grid3DPrinter
GridWoodCarverDrill
SunBulb
ElectricityFlowRecyclerCircuit
RemovingOuterGold
ResizableRooms
MechanicalConsistantCollapsablePanelInToFrame
ExpandableVanToLorry
MechanicalRainbowOverBridge
TightCableFloatSeaPlatform
GrassPictureRobotMower
HedgeShapeRobotTrimmer
TreeShapeRobotTrimmer
SeedsPicturePlanter
BrickWallRobot
3DWallPrinter
WideColourBrickPavementSheetLayer
3DFloorColourPrinter
TileLayer
AnyColourSprayer
AnyColourPen
MechanicalCurveDrawingInstrumet
MagneticPlug&Socket
OvalSpongeLiquidPump
CollapsableBottle
LightingInMusicTracks
...
Latest 26/9/2017 13:51
Motor/Solenoid/DrivenDrawer
Motor/Solenoid/DrivenDoor
Motor/Solenoid/DrivenWindow
Motor/Solenoid/DrivenBlinds
Latest 29/9/2017
AntiSpeedTravelPressureSpinningTechnology
01/10/2017
ResizableJetOutlet
Post by: paulggriffiths on 26/09/2017 00:48:17
Last stage the sun is seen as small is either atmospherical lens, gravityspherical lense or some other spherical lens.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 27/09/2017 00:49:46
Take the image below and put Britain on the globes, Britain is about 1/4 from top of globe and remember to include earth's tilt too.
Now sun for noon(midday) in summer is not where seen in Britain for that time of day and nowhere near so for winter.
It's easy asking the question why?
Been wondering this with the internet since year 2000
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/Axial_tilt_vs_tropical_and_polar_circles.svg/420px-Axial_tilt_vs_tropical_and_polar_circles.svg.png)
Post by: paulggriffiths on 27/09/2017 01:08:55
299,792,458 meters per second speed of light / 100 meters a second / 60 seconds / 60 minutes / 24 hours = 34.69820115740741 days.
At that speed:
54,600,000,000 distance to mars in meters / 299,792,458 meters per second speed of light = 182.125995978191 seconds to get to Mars.
So better stop quick.
So 22 days accelerating and 22 days breaking sort of thing.
May get 500 meters a second so light speed in 6.939640231481482 days?
Post by: paulggriffiths on 27/09/2017 08:36:47
What is this energy?
Post by: RD on 27/09/2017 13:39:53
Some or all of you may be wondering what this thread is about? ... Take the image below and put Britain on the globes ...Q, "Why the Sun at noon is appears above our heads?".
In Britain the sun is never directly overhead : 90o . The highest altitude is ~60o above the horizon in London.
(https://sustainabilityworkshop.autodesk.com/sites/default/files/resize/styles/large/public/core-page-inserted-images/latitude_and_sun_charts-01-720x559.jpg?itok=IraJXGAW)
North of the tropic of Cancer, the sun never gets directly overhead.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 27/09/2017 13:57:00
420px-Axial_tilt_vs_tropical_and_polar_circles.svg.png (70.12 kB . 420x153 - viewed 5365 times)The captain says, "No you ain't driving and I will pick you up when we get back.... :o ................."
Post by: paulggriffiths on 27/09/2017 17:20:53
So my MagneticOsscilatingImpactDrive seems a no go.
Though my ImpactDrive part seems doable so guess my MotorImpactDrive, SolenoidImpactDrive, FuelImpactDrive or NuclearImpact drive may be good.
Post by: Colin2B on 27/09/2017 17:25:18
As can see in the winter the sun is almost out of view.No, can't see that at all.
If you are on a flat plain your field of view extends in a 180° solid angle (cone) - basically your lowest angle of view is a tangent to the earth's surface - so the sun is easily visible above the horizon at noon, although not necessarily overhead, and it is very obvious to everyone why this is so. At its lowest in UK the noon sun is a good 15° above the horizon.
Check out RD's post.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 27/09/2017 17:33:53
As can see in the winter the sun is almost out of view.No, can't see that at all.
If you are on a flat plain your field of view extends in a 180° solid angle (cone) - basically your lowest angle of view is a tangent to the earth's surface - so the sun is easily visible above the horizon at noon, although not necessarily overhead, and it is very obvious to everyone why this is so. At its lowest in UK the noon sun is a good 15° above the horizon.
Check out RD's post.
I would'nt say more than 45° off vertical myself. Guess winter is soon...
Think you're largely confused between the Sun and the Moon, Sun is the bright one. 8)
It's so easy to sit infront a screen and disrespect a person... don't talk to me about tangents: N
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjerome.jouvie.free.fr%2Fopengl-tutorials%2Flessons%2FLesson8-AxisSystems.png&hash=adadb139404030a50a5be1bdce162d22)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opengl-tutorial.org%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Ftuto-13-normal-mapping%2FTBN.png&hash=fd785b30117e26d9cbdf62ca6d04e590)
Here's mine:
(https://s11.postimg.org/v9ti0z06r/parallax4.jpg)
Heres a youtube video, give it a play.
I have to say no one has complimented me on my inventions like GrassPictureRobotMower, MultiViewerVariableAngleTV, OutwardPistonsChamberEngine, RingsMotor, FlapsBirdPlane...
Shame on you >:(
Post by: paulggriffiths on 27/09/2017 18:55:15
Here's an idea, the Sun is a part of space where energy is attracted to.
What is this energy?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/09/2017 20:23:12
I have to say no one has complimented me on my inventions like GrassPictureRobotMower, MultiViewerVariableAngleTV, OutwardPistonsChamberEngine, RingsMotor, FlapsBirdPlane...As far as anyone here can tell, they are figments of your imagination.
Shame on you
Given the other nonsense you post, why would we believe otherwise?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/09/2017 20:54:58
How does my MultiViewerVariableAngleTV work you ignorantWhy should I believe it exists?
Can I buy one?
Can I read the patent?
Post by: paulggriffiths on 27/09/2017 20:58:49
How does my MultiViewerVariableAngleTV work you ignorantWhy should I believe it exists?
Can I buy one?
Can I read the patent?
Not been made.
Can you afford one?
Would you understand it?
The simple way is like those pictures you can view at different angles and it changes by lined plastic lens, but can only have about 10 different angles.
The advanced way is to have a sort of tiny blinds oscillating in front of the screen and update the display for each position. Add in horizontal blinds too and wala!
Another way is to have rotating pixels but cost a fortune.
Easy! 8)
Do you want to buy one, your moving your head around, nothing is changing.
Problem with it though, video's would be million times larger and 3D graphics would require new type cards.
Guess £500 profit and billion screens is £500,000,000,000
Anything else?
Or my reality glasses platform game. You jump up to a high platform and it goes down as you reach the floor, or you ump to a lower platform and it goes up as you reach the floor. Fall off and the world goes up to the sky the comes up from below to continue.
How about TireWearMarkers, green good, orange need changing and red don't drive. £1 a tire, billion cars is £4,000,000,000
Or my corrugated easy crush drinks can. 0.1p * 20 billion cans a week for a year is is £1,040,000,000
MechanicalRainbowOverBridge, is an expanding bridge goes over the road left to right then contracts left to right looking good.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/09/2017 22:02:50
How does my MultiViewerVariableAngleTV work you ignorantWhy should I believe it exists?
Can I buy one?
Can I read the patent?
Not been made.
Can you afford one?
Would you understand it?
The simple way is like those pictures you can view at different angles and it changes by lined plastic lens, but can only have about 10 different angles.
The advanced way is to have a sort of tiny blinds oscillating in front of the screen and update the display for each position. Add in horizontal blinds too and wala!
Another way is to have rotating pixels but cost a fortune.
Easy! 8)
Do you want to buy one, your moving your head around, nothing is changing.
Problem with it though, video's would be million times larger and 3D graphics would require new type cards.
Guess £500 profit and billion screens is £500,000,000,000
Anything else?
Or my reality glasses platform game. You jump up to a high platform and it goes down as you reach the floor, or you ump to a lower platform and it goes up as you reach the floor. Fall off and the world goes up to the sky the comes up from below to continue.
How about TireWearMarkers, green good, orange need changing and red don't drive. £1 a tire, billion cars is £4,000,000,000
MechanicalRainbowOverBridge, is an expanding bridge goes over the road left to right then contracts left to right looking good.
So, your "invention" isn't actually real.
I have to say no one has complimented me on my inventions like GrassPictureRobotMower, MultiViewerVariableAngleTV, OutwardPistonsChamberEngine, RingsMotor, FlapsBirdPlane...
Shame on you
I think you have answered your own question.
Not been made.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/09/2017 22:06:05
How about TireWearMarkers, green good, orange need changing and red don't drive. £1 a tire, billion cars is £4,000,000,000
Is this your patent
https://www.google.com/patents/DE2535396A1?cl=en
Or are you just claiming other people's inventions as your own?
Post by: paulggriffiths on 27/09/2017 22:07:18
Post by: paulggriffiths on 27/09/2017 22:08:28
How about TireWearMarkers, green good, orange need changing and red don't drive. £1 a tire, billion cars is £4,000,000,000
Is this your patent
https://www.google.com/patents/DE2535396A1?cl=en
Or are you just claiming other people's inventions as your own?
Can't have everything...
Post by: paulggriffiths on 28/09/2017 15:40:09
Post by: Colin2B on 28/09/2017 17:02:01
Think you're largely confused between the Sun and the Moon,.........No, I'm not the one who's confused.
It's so easy to sit infront a screen and disrespect a person
Nothing in my post was disrespectful, whereas some of your comments to Thebox are.
Explaining how our view of the sun works in reality should be helpful to you in understanding that whatever your idea is, you are not getting it across, that's fine if you are content to deliver a monologue just don't expect people to respond any more.
PS can I remind you of forum rules concerning language. There is a limit to how many times mods will remove offending posts, if you become a management overhead your registration will be deleted.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 28/09/2017 17:54:44
Think you're largely confused between the Sun and the Moon,.........No, I'm not the one who's confused.
It's so easy to sit infront a screen and disrespect a person
Nothing in my post was disrespectful, whereas some of your comments to Thebox are.
Explaining how our view of the sun works in reality should be helpful to you in understanding that whatever your idea is, you are not getting it across, that's fine if you are content to deliver a monologue just don't expect people to respond any more.
PS can I remind you of forum rules concerning language. There is a limit to how many times mods will remove offending posts, if you become a management overhead your registration will be deleted.
OK colin2B i salute your presence, your the wanna be trainee and I'm just the captain.
Shouldn't your sig read "and the misguided shall be educated,
with the momentous we will reach the stars.."
Post by: paulggriffiths on 28/09/2017 19:08:08
Isn't this conjecture? What if I had a great power source, a few panels, tress, plants & luck. What would hold me back?
Post by: paulggriffiths on 28/09/2017 19:16:13
Edit: From well below freezing to well above sunny, solar winds, radiation and all that, bit like walking in to Sahara desert to sunbath. Personal prefer SS Enterprise's Ten Forward bar. Have a drink, socialize.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/09/2017 19:35:56
Chemist, what has not been made got to do with anything? You don't have to actually build it to apply for patent.If it's never made, it's not useful. If it's not useful, what do you want credit for?
Post by: paulggriffiths on 28/09/2017 20:59:01
Chemist, what has not been made got to do with anything? You don't have to actually build it to apply for patent.If it's never made, it's not useful. If it's not useful, what do you want credit for?
How can you not give me credit for 50 inventions that can be built?
Light speed in 35 days.
Where is any of my math is wrong?
Yea, I'm sure Newton had doubters and Einstein is seen as so bloody clever...but never traveled in space.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 29/09/2017 06:02:29
Chemist, what has not been made got to do with anything? You don't have to actually build it to apply for patent.If it's never made, it's not useful. If it's not useful, what do you want credit for?
How can you not give me credit for 50 inventions that can be built?
Light speed in 35 days.
Where is any of my math is wrong?
Yea, I'm sure Newton had doubters and Einstein is seen as so bloody clever...but never traveled in space.
Think of the pain in those words, what type of life are you trying to give people because your posts history to just about everyone is the same, disturbing. For 10 years you're like this, are you retarded?
I'm official naming you "Bastard of the Internet", you should be exposed.
When you see a flower, do you appreciate others that have seen a flower too? Or do you kick it's head off?
Have you ever seen a leaf fall from a tree? When I checked I saw 2. I came up with that,
Post by: Kryptid on 29/09/2017 06:56:49
Light speed in 35 days.
Where is any of my math is wrong?
According to known physics, no ship can reach the speed of light at all, much less in 35 days. So how does your engine work?
Post by: paulggriffiths on 29/09/2017 07:31:11
Roundabouts too.
OverBridge.png (51.89 kB . 795x2748 - viewed 4987 times)Post by: paulggriffiths on 29/09/2017 07:43:57
Light speed in 35 days.
Where is any of my math is wrong?
According to known physics, no ship can reach the speed of light at all, much less in 35 days. So how does your engine work?
How is it "known?"
If objects don't slow down in space, what's preventing them from speeding up? Wouldn't it make the object slow down?
Light can, so why can't us?
A clock traveling in space slows down, that may happen but does not mean time for the universe slowed down, it is just a physical thing. Would the person holding the clock get more done? No.
If speeding up means you slow down then you wouldn't move at all. You can speed up...
So traveling in space does not take long, isn't that a good thing?
OK, the idea is if you travel at the speed of light time for you stops. Is that true though? What if you go faster than the speed of light and time speeds up? 1 hour you time will be 1 minute universe time, and you get a lot done.
If you are completely still in space, does your time go at infinity? Does that mean the universe time stops?
Should I test traveling to and beyond the speed of light with an automated ship?
So my ship on earth oscillates at 10 hz. And at the speed of light it would be 0 hz. What is the curve? Linear, exponential or something else?
The problem with exponential is it's a math formula invented by man and how can it apply to the real universe?
1
1 * 2 = 2
2 * 2 = 4
4 * 2 = 8
8 * 2 = 16
Now other than that math, give me something else that will create the same results.
I'm not doing all the work here because I need a crew.
What is universe time compared to earth?
What is my ships oscillation speed at half speed of light? If it changes? If the clock slows down then presuming it does too. At the speed of light it stops all together but hits a speck of dust and slows down a bit and does the engine continue with it's full momentum or ? Will it need a reset motor? And how long will that take?
Post by: paulggriffiths on 29/09/2017 15:14:58
Image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos
How about Quartz?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Quartz_oisan.jpg)
Image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicate_minerals
Post by: Kryptid on 29/09/2017 16:49:41
How is it "known?"
Even in particle accelerators we can't get particles with mass all the way up to the speed of light. It's in perfect accordance with special relativity.
Quote
If objects don't slow down in space, what's preventing them from speeding up? Wouldn't it make the object slow down?
You can speed up, sure. However, it becomes increasingly difficult to increase your speed as you near the speed of light because your mass increases. Your mass approaches infinity as your speed approaches that of light. That's why you can never put enough kinetic energy into your ship to reach the speed of light.
Quote
Light can, so why can't us?
Unlike a spaceship, light doesn't have mass.
Quote
A clock traveling in space slows down, that may happen but does not mean time for the universe slowed down, it is just a physical thing. Would the person holding the clock get more done? No.
If speeding up means you slow down then you wouldn't move at all. You can speed up...
So traveling in space does not take long, isn't that a good thing?
OK, the idea is if you travel at the speed of light time for you stops. Is that true though? What if you go faster than the speed of light and time speeds up? 1 hour you time will be 1 minute universe time, and you get a lot done.
If you are completely still in space, does your time go at infinity? Does that mean the universe time stops?
Should I test traveling to and beyond the speed of light with an automated ship?
So my ship on earth oscillates at 10 hz. And at the speed of light it would be 0 hz. What is the curve? Linear, exponential or something else?
The problem with exponential is it's a math formula invented by man and how can it apply to the real universe?
1
1 * 2 = 2
2 * 2 = 4
4 * 2 = 8
8 * 2 = 16
Now other than that math, give me something else that will create the same results.
I'm not doing all the work here because I need a crew.
What is universe time compared to earth?
What is my ships oscillation speed at half speed of light? If it changes? If the clock slows down then presuming it does too. At the speed of light it stops all together but hits a speck of dust and slows down a bit and does the engine continue with it's full momentum or ? Will it need a reset motor? And how long will that take?
In all of that, I didn't see a description of how your engine works.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/09/2017 19:08:02
How can you not give me credit for 50 inventions that can be built?You need to show that they can be built.
Light speed in 35 days.
Where is any of my math is wrong?
Since light speed for any ship is impossible I think we can probably ignore the other 49- unless one of them was coloured tread indicators for tyres in which case we can ignore 48 and point out that you didn't invent one.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 29/09/2017 20:57:37
How is it "known?"
Even in particle accelerators we can't get particles with mass all the way up to the speed of light. It's in perfect accordance with special relativity.QuoteIf objects don't slow down in space, what's preventing them from speeding up? Wouldn't it make the object slow down?
You can speed up, sure. However, it becomes increasingly difficult to increase your speed as you near the speed of light because your mass increases. Your mass approaches infinity as your speed approaches that of light. That's why you can never put enough kinetic energy into your ship to reach the speed of light.QuoteLight can, so why can't us?
Unlike a spaceship, light doesn't have mass.QuoteA clock traveling in space slows down, that may happen but does not mean time for the universe slowed down, it is just a physical thing. Would the person holding the clock get more done? No.
If speeding up means you slow down then you wouldn't move at all. You can speed up...
So traveling in space does not take long, isn't that a good thing?
OK, the idea is if you travel at the speed of light time for you stops. Is that true though? What if you go faster than the speed of light and time speeds up? 1 hour you time will be 1 minute universe time, and you get a lot done.
If you are completely still in space, does your time go at infinity? Does that mean the universe time stops?
Should I test traveling to and beyond the speed of light with an automated ship?
So my ship on earth oscillates at 10 hz. And at the speed of light it would be 0 hz. What is the curve? Linear, exponential or something else?
The problem with exponential is it's a math formula invented by man and how can it apply to the real universe?
1
1 * 2 = 2
2 * 2 = 4
4 * 2 = 8
8 * 2 = 16
Now other than that math, give me something else that will create the same results.
I'm not doing all the work here because I need a crew.
What is universe time compared to earth?
What is my ships oscillation speed at half speed of light? If it changes? If the clock slows down then presuming it does too. At the speed of light it stops all together but hits a speck of dust and slows down a bit and does the engine continue with it's full momentum or ? Will it need a reset motor? And how long will that take?
In all of that, I didn't see a description of how your engine works.
Thank's for the info, ill look it up and ill not give up. :)
Post by: paulggriffiths on 29/09/2017 20:58:32
How can you not give me credit for 50 inventions that can be built?You need to show that they can be built.
Light speed in 35 days.
Where is any of my math is wrong?
Since light speed for any ship is impossible I think we can probably ignore the other 49- unless one of them was coloured tread indicators for tyres in which case we can ignore 48 and point out that you didn't invent one.
There not difficult to build.
Your glowing with arrogance. But you're not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree and possibly a fairy.
Face to face I would probably wind you up until the spring breaks.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 29/09/2017 21:45:38
In 2010, physicist Stephen Hawking wrote an article for the UK paper the Daily Mail explaining how it might be possible to travel through time. We would just need a particle accelerator large enough to accelerate humans the way we accelerate particles, he said.
A person-accelerator with the capabilities of the Large Hadron Collider would move its passengers at close to the speed of light. Because of the effects of special relativity, a period of time that would appear to someone outside the machine to last several years would seem to the accelerating passengers to last only a few days. By the time they stepped off the LHC ride, they would be younger than the rest of us.
Hawking wasn’t actually proposing we try to build such a machine. But he was pointing out a way that time travel already happens today. For example, particles called pi mesons are normally short-lived; they disintegrate after mere millionths of a second. But when they are accelerated to nearly the speed of light, their lifetimes expand dramatically. It seems that these particles are traveling in time, or at least experiencing time more slowly relative to other particles.
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/april-2014/ten-things-you-might-not-know-about-particle-accelerators
Hold on tight because the blood would flow to the back of the body and you're brain would die...
So my MOID(MagneticOsscilatingImpactDrive) will come with turning seats and artificial gravity spin too.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 29/09/2017 22:30:55
Theres's a very thin chance inside atoms, there spinning. Having idea of turning my ship horizontally and turning the ship vertically too "may" slow down the spin and allow speed of light travel. Have to think about it.
Post by: Kryptid on 29/09/2017 22:37:14
Your glowing with arrogance. But you're not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree and possibly a fairy.
Face to face I would probably wind you up until the spring breaks.
Please don't resort to ad hominem.
I have though of the idea that particles spin, so if accelerated to speed of light do they spin more slowly and thus lose mass? Yes I know said have no mass, so do they become -mass?
They don't literally spin in the same sense that a top spins. It's only an analogy. If I'm not mistaken, the concept of spin has more to do with the particle's symmetry. Unfortunately, what spin means exactly in the quantum realm isn't something I've ever fully understood.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 29/09/2017 22:51:05
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 00:10:32
If I fire a 10 gram object at 1 meter a second at a 10 gram pendulum it will swing to X distance.
Fire 10 gram object at 2 meters a second will swing at X?
I'm presuming a test like this was performed? Any info?
Post by: Kryptid on 30/09/2017 05:35:01
E=MC2
If I fire a 10 gram object at 1 meter a second at a 10 gram pendulum it will swing to X distance.
Fire 10 gram object at 2 meters a second will swing at X?
I'm presuming a test like this was performed? Any info?
I don't know if anyone has actually tested that in physical form, but you can make a prediction of what would likely happen based on existing equations. An object weighing 10 grams travelling at 1 meter per second would have a kinetic energy value of 0.005 joules. Under perfect circumstances, where that energy is not lost due to air friction and can be transferred to the pendulum at 100% efficiency, the pendulum itself would move at a speed of 1 meter per second as well.
At best, a 10-gram object can be raised about 5.1 centimeters in height (under Earth's surface gravity) by applying 0,005 joules to it. If the pendulum is appropriately designed (i.e., it's arm is long enough to reach such a height and losses are ignored), that is how high it would move. I think. I don't know if things work differently for curved trajectories or not. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Anyway, if my assumptions are correct, then firing the object at 2 meters per second would result in a maximum possible height of 20.4 centimeters. Here are some useful calculators: http://www.csgnetwork.com/kineticenergycalc.html (http://www.csgnetwork.com/kineticenergycalc.html) and https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/gravitational-potential.php (https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/gravitational-potential.php)
EDIT: I found a pendulum calculator, and it seems that my original calculations do indeed stand up: http://www.endmemo.com/physics/spendulum.php (http://www.endmemo.com/physics/spendulum.php)
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 06:39:42
Truth is probably easier to test my MOID for light speed travel than worry about it.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 06:55:39
11th commandment, thou shell not use a MOID.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 07:27:52
So, within the gravity of a collection of other masses, masses either speed up or slow down. Outside they speed up? At speed their energy/mass/momentum increases....?
Bit like sound barrier. Don't use a MOID at high speed close to stars and planets.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/09/2017 10:55:46
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/09/2017 11:14:30
E=MC2It's done very commonly at (relativistically speaking) low speeds.
If I fire a 10 gram object at 1 meter a second at a 10 gram pendulum it will swing to X distance.
Fire 10 gram object at 2 meters a second will swing at X?
I'm presuming a test like this was performed? Any info?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_pendulum
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/09/2017 11:19:53
Bored Chemist, I'm having the idea of you not liking me invent but not produce the products. I'm not as bad as people who buy patents and not produce the products. I'm trying to reduce man made global warming and make an SS Enterprise.No.
First off, I'm pretty much indifferent to you as such.
I'm also not too bothered by you coming up with fanciful ideas for tings it would be nice to have.
I'm sure we all agree it would be nice to have some sort of teleport system for getting to the shops.
But writing teleportsystemforgettingtotheshops on a web site isn't the same as inventing a teleportation system.
You need to explain how you would make it work.
And, as far as I can tell, all you have done is write words.
Sometimes you pretend you have explained how it would work- but the explanations don't make sense because they are forbidden by the laws of physics.
You are doing this
http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 12:39:25
Bored Chemist, I'm having the idea of you not liking me invent but not produce the products. I'm not as bad as people who buy patents and not produce the products. I'm trying to reduce man made global warming and make an SS Enterprise.No.
First off, I'm pretty much indifferent to you as such.
I'm also not too bothered by you coming up with fanciful ideas for tings it would be nice to have.
I'm sure we all agree it would be nice to have some sort of teleport system for getting to the shops.
But writing teleportsystemforgettingtotheshops on a web site isn't the same as inventing a teleportation system.
You need to explain how you would make it work.
And, as far as I can tell, all you have done is write words.
Sometimes you pretend you have explained how it would work- but the explanations don't make sense because they are forbidden by the laws of physics.
You are doing this
http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php
Well, the text you wrote makes me believe you are gay.
All of them if thought out can defiantly be created. They are new and add the 2 together is proof of invention.
Why do't you create you're own topic like "Why I choose to be gay" and keep away from this one because you look like a gay troll.
Due to your lack of brain capacity I'm presuming you can't hold down a relationship and move from one to the next.
I probably have done more creative thinking than any one else on the planet. 50 inventions is no small amount.
I don't have to prove them to you Chemist but I will to the patent offices. Though I have no intent because if anyone steels my inventions they will become negatively famous. That is my power, like the sun you will get burnt.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/09/2017 13:08:15
Secondly curved journeys increase journey times. The fastest way to Mar's is a straight line with navigation adjustment by the captain of the craft . In simple terms the captain can steer the path by simply looking out of the window and guiding the craft to mars by sight.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 13:11:34
Firstly the Sun is never directly above your head. It will appear to be ''above'' your head if you were at the equator. The great pyramid would be an ideal geometrical position. Angles do not exist and either is there an ''above'' your head , it could well be ''under'' your head as the Universe does not have a this way up sign. Angles are really linearity's but relatively angled to something else.
Secondly curved journeys increase journey times. The fastest way to Mar's is a straight line with navigation adjustment by the captain of the craft . In simple terms the captain can steer the path by simply looking out of the window and guiding the craft to mars by sight.
Last winter I looked at noon and the Sun is up high in the sky, I live in Bristol.
Takes 6 months to get to mars and by then Mars would of orbited a million miles. Take that in to consideration. Think before you approach I.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/09/2017 13:14:24
And that means what exactly? I live in Staffordshire and each winter we are slightly tilted away from the Sun, essentially the Sun will appear in being father away because of this.Firstly the Sun is never directly above your head. It will appear to be ''above'' your head if you were at the equator. The great pyramid would be an ideal geometrical position. Angles do not exist and either is there an ''above'' your head , it could well be ''under'' your head as the Universe does not have a this way up sign. Angles are really linearity's but relatively angled to something else.
Secondly curved journeys increase journey times. The fastest way to Mar's is a straight line with navigation adjustment by the captain of the craft . In simple terms the captain can steer the path by simply looking out of the window and guiding the craft to mars by sight.
Last winter I looked at noon and the Sun is up high in the sky, I live in Bristol.
P.s There is no higher , there is only near and far.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 13:27:56
Think before you approach I.
And that means what exactly? I live in Staffordshire and each winter we are slightly tilted away from the Sun, essentially the Sun will appear in being father away because of this.Think before you approach I.Check too.Firstly the Sun is never directly above your head. It will appear to be ''above'' your head if you were at the equator. The great pyramid would be an ideal geometrical position. Angles do not exist and either is there an ''above'' your head , it could well be ''under'' your head as the Universe does not have a this way up sign. Angles are really linearity's but relatively angled to something else.
Secondly curved journeys increase journey times. The fastest way to Mar's is a straight line with navigation adjustment by the captain of the craft . In simple terms the captain can steer the path by simply looking out of the window and guiding the craft to mars by sight.
Last winter I looked at noon and the Sun is up high in the sky, I live in Bristol.
P.s There is no higher , there is only near and far.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/09/2017 13:29:43
LOLBored Chemist, I'm having the idea of you not liking me invent but not produce the products. I'm not as bad as people who buy patents and not produce the products. I'm trying to reduce man made global warming and make an SS Enterprise.No.
First off, I'm pretty much indifferent to you as such.
I'm also not too bothered by you coming up with fanciful ideas for tings it would be nice to have.
I'm sure we all agree it would be nice to have some sort of teleport system for getting to the shops.
But writing teleportsystemforgettingtotheshops on a web site isn't the same as inventing a teleportation system.
You need to explain how you would make it work.
And, as far as I can tell, all you have done is write words.
Sometimes you pretend you have explained how it would work- but the explanations don't make sense because they are forbidden by the laws of physics.
You are doing this
http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php
Well, the text you wrote makes me believe you are gay.
All of them if thought out can defiantly be created. They are new and add the 2 together is proof of invention.
Why do't you create you're own topic like "Why I choose to be gay" and keep away from this one because you look like a gay troll.
Due to your lack of brain capacity I'm presuming you can't hold down a relationship and move from one to the next.
I probably have done more creative thinking than any one else on the planet. 50 inventions is no small amount.
I don't have to prove them to you Chemist but I will to the patent offices. Though I have no intent because if anyone steels my inventions they will become negatively famous. That is my power, like the sun you will get burnt.
Wrong on every count.
Just one question; what difference would it make if I was gay?
Post by: RD on 30/09/2017 13:33:05
Last winter I looked at noon and the Sun is up high in the sky, I live in Bristol.If you value your eyesight, don't look at the sun, particularly at noon.
Looking at shadows, (which are harmless), can tell you the altitude of the sun.
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-60f14cce89aac868c21d81bc750f2286-c)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhorizonselfdiscovery.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FLong-Shadow.jpg&hash=e363689f04448402b49c17b4aa10a31f)
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 13:33:26
LOLBored Chemist, I'm having the idea of you not liking me invent but not produce the products. I'm not as bad as people who buy patents and not produce the products. I'm trying to reduce man made global warming and make an SS Enterprise.No.
First off, I'm pretty much indifferent to you as such.
I'm also not too bothered by you coming up with fanciful ideas for tings it would be nice to have.
I'm sure we all agree it would be nice to have some sort of teleport system for getting to the shops.
But writing teleportsystemforgettingtotheshops on a web site isn't the same as inventing a teleportation system.
You need to explain how you would make it work.
And, as far as I can tell, all you have done is write words.
Sometimes you pretend you have explained how it would work- but the explanations don't make sense because they are forbidden by the laws of physics.
You are doing this
http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php
Well, the text you wrote makes me believe you are gay.
All of them if thought out can defiantly be created. They are new and add the 2 together is proof of invention.
Why do't you create you're own topic like "Why I choose to be gay" and keep away from this one because you look like a gay troll.
Due to your lack of brain capacity I'm presuming you can't hold down a relationship and move from one to the next.
I probably have done more creative thinking than any one else on the planet. 50 inventions is no small amount.
I don't have to prove them to you Chemist but I will to the patent offices. Though I have no intent because if anyone steels my inventions they will become negatively famous. That is my power, like the sun you will get burnt.
Wrong on every count.
Just one question; what difference would it make if I was gay?
If there was 2 gay dogs would you stop them and thus do you treat humans worse than dogs?
Is gay part of equal rights?
Go Chemist, Go Chemist, Go Chemist, Go!
Gay Chemist. You are defiantly "Behind".
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/09/2017 13:43:34
I presume that your plan is to get banned to give you an excuse for not being able to respond to valid criticism of your bizarre beliefs.LOLBored Chemist, I'm having the idea of you not liking me invent but not produce the products. I'm not as bad as people who buy patents and not produce the products. I'm trying to reduce man made global warming and make an SS Enterprise.No.
First off, I'm pretty much indifferent to you as such.
I'm also not too bothered by you coming up with fanciful ideas for tings it would be nice to have.
I'm sure we all agree it would be nice to have some sort of teleport system for getting to the shops.
But writing teleportsystemforgettingtotheshops on a web site isn't the same as inventing a teleportation system.
You need to explain how you would make it work.
And, as far as I can tell, all you have done is write words.
Sometimes you pretend you have explained how it would work- but the explanations don't make sense because they are forbidden by the laws of physics.
You are doing this
http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php
Well, the text you wrote makes me believe you are gay.
All of them if thought out can defiantly be created. They are new and add the 2 together is proof of invention.
Why do't you create you're own topic like "Why I choose to be gay" and keep away from this one because you look like a gay troll.
Due to your lack of brain capacity I'm presuming you can't hold down a relationship and move from one to the next.
I probably have done more creative thinking than any one else on the planet. 50 inventions is no small amount.
I don't have to prove them to you Chemist but I will to the patent offices. Though I have no intent because if anyone steels my inventions they will become negatively famous. That is my power, like the sun you will get burnt.
Wrong on every count.
Just one question; what difference would it make if I was gay?
If there was 2 gay dogs would you stop them and thus do you treat humans worse than dogs?
Is gay part of equal rights?
Go Chemist, Go Chemist, Go Chemist, Go!
Gay Chemist.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 13:47:27
I presume that your plan is to get banned to give you an excuse for not being able to respond to valid criticism of your bizarre beliefs.LOLBored Chemist, I'm having the idea of you not liking me invent but not produce the products. I'm not as bad as people who buy patents and not produce the products. I'm trying to reduce man made global warming and make an SS Enterprise.No.
First off, I'm pretty much indifferent to you as such.
I'm also not too bothered by you coming up with fanciful ideas for tings it would be nice to have.
I'm sure we all agree it would be nice to have some sort of teleport system for getting to the shops.
But writing teleportsystemforgettingtotheshops on a web site isn't the same as inventing a teleportation system.
You need to explain how you would make it work.
And, as far as I can tell, all you have done is write words.
Sometimes you pretend you have explained how it would work- but the explanations don't make sense because they are forbidden by the laws of physics.
You are doing this
http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php
Well, the text you wrote makes me believe you are gay.
All of them if thought out can defiantly be created. They are new and add the 2 together is proof of invention.
Why do't you create you're own topic like "Why I choose to be gay" and keep away from this one because you look like a gay troll.
Due to your lack of brain capacity I'm presuming you can't hold down a relationship and move from one to the next.
I probably have done more creative thinking than any one else on the planet. 50 inventions is no small amount.
I don't have to prove them to you Chemist but I will to the patent offices. Though I have no intent because if anyone steels my inventions they will become negatively famous. That is my power, like the sun you will get burnt.
Wrong on every count.
Just one question; what difference would it make if I was gay?
If there was 2 gay dogs would you stop them and thus do you treat humans worse than dogs?
Is gay part of equal rights?
Go Chemist, Go Chemist, Go Chemist, Go!
Gay Chemist.
I would say "Can't you take it?" though I think you have.
Gay is illegal in Britain. So I'm merely stating such and taking the micky of your text.
Sorry, Chemist would not love to chat and don't apply for entry to my ship.
Though you could be a commodity, may be swap you for a plasma rifle with an alien but don't think they would be anywhere desperate.
Guess I could create a bizarre, but don't believe would get any legal customers. Guess theres the back door and profit is profit but no, not my style.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 14:38:58
When you build a house, you tile tiles directly to brick and then use my new invention "PlasterRobot".
Using distance meters it positions itself parallel to the wall.
You fill the Water and Plaster.
It mixes the plaster and water depending on the size of the wall and thickness of plaster required.
Using a long ejector it moves along applying the plaster, length after length.
Finally it uses either a line or grid of distance meters and a trowel to finish.
It rotates the plaster mixer, scrapes out the remaining plaster, blasts with water and uses a brush, inspects with a light and camera... Rinses the brush.
Flashes the system made of glass with water until perfectly clean with light and cameras.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 15:33:50
External.
Positions parrallel to wall.
Known positions of windows and compares to hole in wall.
Positions window and auto screws.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 15:42:12
AutoElectricianRobot
AutoRoofRobot.
AutoDoorFitter
AutoSkirtingFitter
AutoKitchenFitter
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/09/2017 15:43:18
Gay is illegal in Britain.No- not for about 50 years I think.
Not that it's relevant.
You may also wish to learn the difference between bizarre and bazaar.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 15:56:03
However this turns out, there is a balance between the people, the designers and the company's.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 15:58:41
50 years? Think not. Chemist thinks b...... is legal.Gay is illegal in Britain.No- not for about 50 years I think.
Not that it's relevant.
You may also wish to learn the difference between bizarre and bazaar.
You made it relevant with the sound of you're text.
Bizarre is an understatement.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/09/2017 16:17:48
I'm not the only one who thinks so.50 years? Think not. Chemist thinks b...... is legal.Gay is illegal in Britain.No- not for about 50 years I think.
Not that it's relevant.
You may also wish to learn the difference between bizarre and bazaar.
You made it relevant with the sound of you're text.
Bizarre is an understatement.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/homosexuality-legal-50-years-gay-queer-trans-people-lgbt-rights-sex-peter-tatchell-1967-a7860831.html
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 17:19:11
I'm not the only one who thinks so.50 years? Think not. Chemist thinks b...... is legal.Gay is illegal in Britain.No- not for about 50 years I think.
Not that it's relevant.
You may also wish to learn the difference between bizarre and bazaar.
You made it relevant with the sound of you're text.
Bizarre is an understatement.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/homosexuality-legal-50-years-gay-queer-trans-people-lgbt-rights-sex-peter-tatchell-1967-a7860831.html
Ok, I guess lifestyle is improving.
Just be careful of some hanging around trying to "Bend you".
Guess I have to give you an apology as I would not like to encourage the idea of it.
Sorry.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/09/2017 17:35:52
Now, not that it matters, why do you think your mistaken opinion of my preferences matters to anything?I'm not the only one who thinks so.50 years? Think not. Chemist thinks b...... is legal.Gay is illegal in Britain.No- not for about 50 years I think.
Not that it's relevant.
You may also wish to learn the difference between bizarre and bazaar.
You made it relevant with the sound of you're text.
Bizarre is an understatement.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/homosexuality-legal-50-years-gay-queer-trans-people-lgbt-rights-sex-peter-tatchell-1967-a7860831.html
Ok, I guess lifestyle is improving.
Just be careful of some hanging around trying to "Bend you".
Guess I have to give you an apology as I would not like to encourage the idea of it.
Sorry.
All it seems to have done is show up that you don't know what you are talking about.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 17:39:56
Now, not that it matters, why do you think your mistaken opinion of my preferences matters to anything?I'm not the only one who thinks so.50 years? Think not. Chemist thinks b...... is legal.Gay is illegal in Britain.No- not for about 50 years I think.
Not that it's relevant.
You may also wish to learn the difference between bizarre and bazaar.
You made it relevant with the sound of you're text.
Bizarre is an understatement.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/homosexuality-legal-50-years-gay-queer-trans-people-lgbt-rights-sex-peter-tatchell-1967-a7860831.html
Ok, I guess lifestyle is improving.
Just be careful of some hanging around trying to "Bend you".
Guess I have to give you an apology as I would not like to encourage the idea of it.
Sorry.
All it seems to have done is show up that you don't know what you are talking about.
What makes you think your opinion about my inventions matter to me other than what follows?
Am I on your thread?
Are you a qualified chemist?
Are you formally accusing me of fraud or going beyond and the word slander?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/09/2017 18:16:27
Post by: alancalverd on 30/09/2017 18:18:44
I live in Bristol.
If that isn't an insult to Bristolians, it explains nothing.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 18:19:37
As I said, it looks like you have no idea what you are talking about.
Do you wish to repeat that?
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 18:24:54
I live in Bristol.
If that isn't an insult to Bristolians, it explains nothing.
It explains that I live in Bristol.
A Prince of The Royal Tribe Of Wales & Scotland, England, Ireland & more.
Best you stick to attending your cattle.
Edit: Cattle was Calvert, also A Lord, imagined colonizing America.. You're Calverd, A family name, A fish.
Do you want to continue this?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/09/2017 18:27:17
As I said, it looks like you have no idea what you are talking about.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 18:31:45
As I said, it looks like you have no idea what you are talking about.
So sad...
Post by: Kryptid on 30/09/2017 19:18:01
Well, the text you wrote makes me believe you are gay.
What does homosexuality have to do with it? Do you think being gay makes a person stupid or not credible or what?
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 19:22:31
Well, the text you wrote makes me believe you are gay.
What does homosexuality have to do with it? Do you think being gay makes a person stupid or not credible or what?
Stupid? Does not stand up in court.
Not creditable? Would help.
Or what? Probably picked on.
What do you think?
I would say you would have to be picked on before picking on someone else or is a problem within someone to pick on somebody.
There is defiantly a reason to pick on somebody and it is defiantly the attackers fault.
Post by: Kryptid on 30/09/2017 19:26:27
What do you think?
I think you were trying to use it as an insult to him.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 19:31:15
What do you think?
I think you were trying to use it as an insult to him.
Yes, he was repeatedly attacking my credibility as an inventor, so I have a little fun.
So, small features my friend.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/09/2017 19:32:45
I think you were hoping I'd say something dim like "how dare you accuse me of being gay!" then you could accuse me of homophobia and so on.Well, the text you wrote makes me believe you are gay.
What does homosexuality have to do with it? Do you think being gay makes a person stupid or not credible or what?
Stupid? Does not stand up in court.
Not creditable? Would help.
Or what? Probably picked on.
What do you think?
That would be consistent with the fact that you have repeatedly failed to explain why you even mentioned it.
As I said, it looks like you have no idea what you are talking about.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/09/2017 19:35:50
Since you have failed to explain how most of your "inventions" could work, and some of them plainly couldn't, nor have you shown any patents or other suggestions that anyone but you thought they might work, and in at least one case, someone else already patented "your" invention, I don't think I could attack your credibility as an inventor.What do you think?
I think you were trying to use it as an insult to him.
Yes, he was repeatedly attacking my credibility as an inventor, so I have a little fun.
So, small features my friend.
As far as I can see, you have very little credibility to attack.
Feel free to show me that I'm wrong and that others think you are credible.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 19:38:05
I think you were hoping I'd say something dim like "how dare you accuse me of being gay!" then you could accuse me of homophobia and so on.Well, the text you wrote makes me believe you are gay.
What does homosexuality have to do with it? Do you think being gay makes a person stupid or not credible or what?
Stupid? Does not stand up in court.
Not creditable? Would help.
Or what? Probably picked on.
What do you think?
That would be consistent with the fact that you have repeatedly failed to explain why you even mentioned it.As I said, it looks like you have no idea what you are talking about.
Now, imagining what someone else is thinking is a bit like a strong person knowing others are weaker though obviously if the someone is strong, some others are too.
Some people "think" they are strong, but never have competed,
Post by: Kryptid on 30/09/2017 19:42:40
Yes, he was repeatedly attacking my credibility as an inventor, so I have a little fun.
So, small features my friend.
I can't seem to find the rules on this board, but I'm pretty sure insulting the other members is in violation of them. To be honest, most of the inventions you have told us about have been limited to a list of invention names. We don't know how they work or if they even would work. To question whether an undescribed invention could actually function seems like a legitimate criticism to me. I've actually come up with a lot of inventions as well, but I never actually built any of them and as I grew more knowledgeable about science and technology, I discovered that many of them would not have worked (or at least would not have been practically useful). That doesn't mean that your inventions necessarily won't work, but it does raise the question of how we are supposed to know if they will.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 19:50:06
Yes, he was repeatedly attacking my credibility as an inventor, so I have a little fun.
So, small features my friend.
I can't seem to find the rules on this board, but I'm pretty sure insulting the other members is in violation of them. To be honest, most of the inventions you have told us about have been limited to a list of invention names. We don't know how they work or if they even would work. To question whether an undescribed invention could actually function seems like a legitimate criticism to me. I've actually come up with a lot of inventions as well, but I never actually built any of them and as I grew more knowledgeable about science and technology, I discovered that many of them would not have worked (or at least would not have been practically useful). That doesn't mean that your inventions necessarily won't work, but it does raise the question of how we are supposed to know if they will.
Well, this started with the Sun. The Bored Chemist repeatedly attacked my credibility so I gave a list of my inventions.
They ALL are creatable like for instance my OutwardPistonsChamberEngine:
Pistons in an outward direction with a central chamber for combined "explosion". Each piston is connected to a rod, a cog.
Each cog equally rotates a cog going around the outside.
4 of such is required for a 4 combustion engine.
Which could be conveniently used inside a wheel.
Any others?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/09/2017 19:51:08
Post by: Kryptid on 30/09/2017 19:53:43
Well, this started with the Sun. The Bored Chemist repeatedly attacked my credibility so I gave a list of my inventions.
They ALL are creatable like for instance my OutwardPistonsChamberEngine:
Pistons in an outward direction with a central chamber for combined "explosion". Each piston is connected to a rod, a cog.
Each cog equally rotates a cog going around the outside.
4 of such is required for a 4 combustion engine.
Which could be conveniently used inside a wheel.
Any others?
That sounds like it could work but wouldn't be much different from the radial engines used on some aircraft.
I'm sure all of your inventions could actually be built, but that doesn't mean they would all work (or work in a more efficient manner than existing machines). Especially those with claimed extraordinary performance, like the one you say can push a ship to the speed of light.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 19:54:03
Your not the guy who invented the Cucumber end cap are you?
No, but just created the cucumber screw, looks interesting on a plate.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 19:57:59
Well, this started with the Sun. The Bored Chemist repeatedly attacked my credibility so I gave a list of my inventions.
They ALL are creatable like for instance my OutwardPistonsChamberEngine:
Pistons in an outward direction with a central chamber for combined "explosion". Each piston is connected to a rod, a cog.
Each cog equally rotates a cog going around the outside.
4 of such is required for a 4 combustion engine.
Which could be conveniently used inside a wheel.
Any others?
That sounds like it could work but wouldn't be much different from the radial engines used on some aircraft.
I'm sure all of your inventions could actually be built, but that doesn't mean they would all work (or work in a more efficient manner than existing machines). Especially those with claimed extraordinary performance, like the one you say can push a ship to the speed of light.
Deepens, a lot of atoms bouncing of side walls then hitting each other and so on could be a great loss of power. My engine, there are no sides to the chamber, only front and back. The sides ARE the pistons.
As for my MOID, was originally for hover vehicles but then you never know because impact is the only way of moving something in space other than jet or explosion. And I invented impact many years ago.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/09/2017 20:02:14
So what is your question or idea about the Sun and position?Your not the guy who invented the Cucumber end cap are you?
No, but just created the cucumber screw, looks interesting on a plate.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 20:04:46
So what is your question or idea about the Sun and position?Your not the guy who invented the Cucumber end cap are you?
No, but just created the cucumber screw, looks interesting on a plate.
At noon you see the sun above your head, but especially in winter the sun is not above compared to Britain on the earth, which with the tilt, Britain is on top.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/09/2017 20:09:59
That's quite a simple answer, in the winter the Sun's relative angle is lower than in summer. So it appears to be lower in winter than in summer.So what is your question or idea about the Sun and position?Your not the guy who invented the Cucumber end cap are you?
No, but just created the cucumber screw, looks interesting on a plate.
At noon you see the sun above your head, but especially in winter the sun is not above compared to Britain on the earth, which with the tilt, Britain is on top.
Relatively it is as if the Earth tilts away from the Sun because neither knows who is moving.
Anything else or can we now end this rather silly thread?
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 20:12:32
That's quite a simple answer, in the winter the Sun's relative angle is lower than in summer. So it appears to be lower in winter than in summer.So what is your question or idea about the Sun and position?Your not the guy who invented the Cucumber end cap are you?
No, but just created the cucumber screw, looks interesting on a plate.
At noon you see the sun above your head, but especially in winter the sun is not above compared to Britain on the earth, which with the tilt, Britain is on top.
Relatively it is as if the Earth tilts away from the Sun because neither knows who is moving.
Anything else or can we now end this rather silly thread?
Go away box, you're blind. You're chatting crap and should reread what you have just typed. End, who are you?
Go look at a globe and do some thinking before returning to my thread.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/09/2017 20:17:08
I am a person who just gave you the answer to the question you asked. This is not the Jeremy Kyle show and antics will not be tolerated by the moderators, believe me I have tested the moderators patience on several occasions and that is why I am only allowed to post in this section. Just a friendly warning.That's quite a simple answer, in the winter the Sun's relative angle is lower than in summer. So it appears to be lower in winter than in summer.So what is your question or idea about the Sun and position?Your not the guy who invented the Cucumber end cap are you?
No, but just created the cucumber screw, looks interesting on a plate.
At noon you see the sun above your head, but especially in winter the sun is not above compared to Britain on the earth, which with the tilt, Britain is on top.
Relatively it is as if the Earth tilts away from the Sun because neither knows who is moving.
Anything else or can we now end this rather silly thread?
Go away box, you're blind. End, who are you?
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 20:18:46
Friendly warning? Sounds like some excuse in an attempt to make me quite.I am a person who just gave you the answer to the question you asked. This is not the Jeremy Kyle show and antics will not be tolerated by the moderators, believe me I have tested the moderators patience on several occasions and that is why I am only allowed to post in this section. Just a friendly warning.That's quite a simple answer, in the winter the Sun's relative angle is lower than in summer. So it appears to be lower in winter than in summer.So what is your question or idea about the Sun and position?Your not the guy who invented the Cucumber end cap are you?
No, but just created the cucumber screw, looks interesting on a plate.
At noon you see the sun above your head, but especially in winter the sun is not above compared to Britain on the earth, which with the tilt, Britain is on top.
Relatively it is as if the Earth tilts away from the Sun because neither knows who is moving.
Anything else or can we now end this rather silly thread?
Go away box, you're blind. End, who are you?
First you disagree.
Then you attack.
Then you gag me.
Now what?
Anyway, you gave an answer not the answer.
Been occasionally thinking about this before the internet when young. Then the internet came out and with that power was wondering if anyone was going to ask "Noon for everyone?". Now a couple decades later I ask.
Wait until Noon midwinter then come back to discuss this threads main topic.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/09/2017 20:29:07
I gave the answer, if you are saying that is not the answer then I must presume you already know the answer. So therefore you are asking a question to something you already know, which means you are trolling.Friendly warning? Sounds like some excuse in an attempt to make me quite.I am a person who just gave you the answer to the question you asked. This is not the Jeremy Kyle show and antics will not be tolerated by the moderators, believe me I have tested the moderators patience on several occasions and that is why I am only allowed to post in this section. Just a friendly warning.That's quite a simple answer, in the winter the Sun's relative angle is lower than in summer. So it appears to be lower in winter than in summer.So what is your question or idea about the Sun and position?Your not the guy who invented the Cucumber end cap are you?
No, but just created the cucumber screw, looks interesting on a plate.
At noon you see the sun above your head, but especially in winter the sun is not above compared to Britain on the earth, which with the tilt, Britain is on top.
Relatively it is as if the Earth tilts away from the Sun because neither knows who is moving.
Anything else or can we now end this rather silly thread?
Go away box, you're blind. End, who are you?
First you disagree.
Then you attack.
Then you gag me.
Now what?
Anyway, you gave an answer not the answer.
Why on earth would I want to make you quiet? You are not an interest to me. I just don't like your manner and would appreciate if you would tone it down please.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 20:33:44
I gave the answer, if you are saying that is not the answer then I must presume you already know the answer. So therefore you are asking a question to something you already know, which means you are trolling.Friendly warning? Sounds like some excuse in an attempt to make me quite.I am a person who just gave you the answer to the question you asked. This is not the Jeremy Kyle show and antics will not be tolerated by the moderators, believe me I have tested the moderators patience on several occasions and that is why I am only allowed to post in this section. Just a friendly warning.That's quite a simple answer, in the winter the Sun's relative angle is lower than in summer. So it appears to be lower in winter than in summer.So what is your question or idea about the Sun and position?Your not the guy who invented the Cucumber end cap are you?
No, but just created the cucumber screw, looks interesting on a plate.
At noon you see the sun above your head, but especially in winter the sun is not above compared to Britain on the earth, which with the tilt, Britain is on top.
Relatively it is as if the Earth tilts away from the Sun because neither knows who is moving.
Anything else or can we now end this rather silly thread?
Go away box, you're blind. End, who are you?
First you disagree.
Then you attack.
Then you gag me.
Now what?
Anyway, you gave an answer not the answer.
Why on earth would I want to make you quiet? You are not an interest to me. I just don't like your manner and would appreciate if you would tone it down please.
You mean like listening in on someone and then tell them to be quiet without a reason?
Get a life mate, it's not about you or anyone else, it's the Sun.
Is it you're life's intent on going around making sure everything is to your own satisfaction?
You don't have to read this thread. In your absence the sun still shines.
Post by: Kryptid on 30/09/2017 20:35:44
As for my MOID, was originally for hover vehicles but then you never know because impact is the only way of moving something in space other than jet or explosion. And I invented impact many years ago.
What exactly do you mean by "impact"? One object hitting another? Sure, that will transfer kinetic energy from one object to another, but I don't know how you would make a "hover engine" using it... unless you are trying to do it in the same way which I once thought of doing a very long time ago (which violates Newton's laws of motion and thus would not work).
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/09/2017 20:37:50
Been occasionally thinking about this before the internet when young.Some time in the 1960s?
or is this another instance of you not knowing what you are talking about
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 20:38:59
As for my MOID, was originally for hover vehicles but then you never know because impact is the only way of moving something in space other than jet or explosion. And I invented impact many years ago.
What exactly do you mean by "impact"? One object hitting another? Sure, that will transfer kinetic energy from one object to another, but I don't know how you would make a "hover engine" using it... unless you are trying to do it in the same way which I once thought of doing a very long time ago (which violates Newton's laws of motion and thus would not work).
Compare mine to how birds fly. That's mine.
What are you making up? What specific about yours that won't work?
You have read a lot and never mentioned this before...
ImpactEngine has the word impact, you should of said a while ago...
Your chatting out your backside.
I explain this one and then you say this.
Curiosity killed the cat? Now it's Explained woken the dog.
YOU WOULD OF GAVE YOU'RE IDEA FOR EVIDENCE BUT NO.
YOU COULD OF CAME UP WITH A CRYPTIC CLUE OF IT OR THE INITIALS OF THE WORDS.
You're have to contest after a year after my initial patent application.
They won't waste their time with you. In fact you may end up being accused of fraud.
Is that a threat? Take it as you like.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 20:40:21
Been occasionally thinking about this before the internet when young.Some time in the 1960s?
or is this another instance of you not knowing what you are talking about
I know my own life. Just hope you know yours.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/09/2017 21:05:55
I am a person who just gave you the answer to the question you asked. This is not the Jeremy Kyle show and antics will not be tolerated by the moderators, believe me I have tested the moderators patience on several occasions and that is why I am only allowed to post in this section. Just a friendly warning.That's quite a simple answer, in the winter the Sun's relative angle is lower than in summer. So it appears to be lower in winter than in summer.So what is your question or idea about the Sun and position?Your not the guy who invented the Cucumber end cap are you?
No, but just created the cucumber screw, looks interesting on a plate.
At noon you see the sun above your head, but especially in winter the sun is not above compared to Britain on the earth, which with the tilt, Britain is on top.
Relatively it is as if the Earth tilts away from the Sun because neither knows who is moving.
Anything else or can we now end this rather silly thread?
Go away box, you're blind. End, who are you?
You mean like listening in on someone and then tell them to be quiet without a reason?
Get a life mate, it's not about you or anyone else, it's the Sun.
Is it you're life's intent on going around making sure everything is to your own satisfaction?
You don't have to read this thread. In your absence the sun still shines.You mean like listening in on someone and then tell them to be quiet without a reason?Huh...Quite clearly you the half full glass type. Do you even understand your own ramblings?
I think you might have delusion of grandeur. I had that once and I was just like you and really confused.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 21:28:49
I'm electronics, computer programming, mechanics...
Everything for a hover vehicle. Life's passion since 1.5 years old.
Recently physics.
Petrol engines...
Propellers...
And even "designer" stuff because thought enjoy the place.
If you had a lot you wouldn't waste your time correcting other people...
If you're worried about the future of the planet, it would be about now because of the fuel crises that was in the news... time is everything.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 21:44:44
I am a person who just gave you the answer to the question you asked. This is not the Jeremy Kyle show and antics will not be tolerated by the moderators, believe me I have tested the moderators patience on several occasions and that is why I am only allowed to post in this section. Just a friendly warning.That's quite a simple answer, in the winter the Sun's relative angle is lower than in summer. So it appears to be lower in winter than in summer.So what is your question or idea about the Sun and position?Your not the guy who invented the Cucumber end cap are you?
No, but just created the cucumber screw, looks interesting on a plate.
At noon you see the sun above your head, but especially in winter the sun is not above compared to Britain on the earth, which with the tilt, Britain is on top.
Relatively it is as if the Earth tilts away from the Sun because neither knows who is moving.
Anything else or can we now end this rather silly thread?
Go away box, you're blind. End, who are you?
You mean like listening in on someone and then tell them to be quiet without a reason?
Get a life mate, it's not about you or anyone else, it's the Sun.
Is it you're life's intent on going around making sure everything is to your own satisfaction?
You don't have to read this thread. In your absence the sun still shines.You mean like listening in on someone and then tell them to be quiet without a reason?Huh...Quite clearly you the half full glass type. Do you even understand your own ramblings?
I think you might have delusion of grandeur. I had that once and I was just like you and really confused.
There's what I think and what I think other are thinking...
Just making sure you're aware of such because wouldn't want a non female accuse me of letting you embarrass yourself.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 21:46:56
There's what I think and what I think other are thinking...
Just making sure you're aware of such because wouldn't want a female accuse me of letting you embarrass yourself in the future.
Thebox you have rearranged some of my text...
This is new to me, really am wondering about you now.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 21:58:09
You mean like listening in on someone and then tell them to be quiet without a reason?
Get a life mate, it's not about you or anyone else, it's the Sun.
Is it you're life's intent on going around making sure everything is to your own satisfaction?
You don't have to read this thread. In your absence the sun still shines.
*********************************************************************************************************************
I said this:
You mean like listening in on someone and then tell them to be quiet without a reason?
Get a life mate, it's not about you or anyone else, it's the Sun.
Is it you're life's intent on going around making sure everything is to your own satisfaction?
You don't have to read this thread. In your absence the sun still shines.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/09/2017 22:04:40
So, were you doing this in the 60s?Been occasionally thinking about this before the internet when young.Some time in the 1960s?
or is this another instance of you not knowing what you are talking about
I know my own life. Just hope you know yours.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 22:06:09
BACK OFF
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 22:28:19
But I have not been accused of such because then would of created more evidence of I am the inventor of all the inventions.
Yes, they probably would of though of this and not taken the risk and I would say some attacks are directly to question my credibility of creating such inventions.
Game over.
Post by: Kryptid on 30/09/2017 22:28:46
Compare mine to how birds fly. That's mine.
What are you making up? What specific about yours that won't work?
You have read a lot and never mentioned this before...
ImpactEngine has the word impact, you should of said a while ago...
Your chatting out your backside.
I explain this one and then you say this.
Curiosity killed the cat? Now it's Explained woken the dog.
YOU WOULD OF GAVE YOU'RE IDEA FOR EVIDENCE BUT NO.
YOU COULD OF CAME UP WITH A CRYPTIC CLUE OF IT OR THE INITIALS OF THE WORDS.
You're have to contest after a year after my initial patent application.
They won't waste their time with you. In fact you may end up being accused of fraud.
Is that a threat? Take it as you like.
Um, I think you need to chill out. I don't know what you're getting worked up about. My idea was to use a piston that moves forward very quickly, thus forcing the ship to move as well. Then the piston would be retracted back to its starting position very slowly in order to prevent it from pulling the ship backwards. Then the piston would be slammed forward again to repeat the cycle. I abandoned that idea long ago because I now know that Newton's laws prevent it from working. The ship would wobble around its center of gravity and it would not gain any net forward movement. No matter how quickly or slowly I decided to move the piston, it would make no difference.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 22:31:14
Compare mine to how birds fly. That's mine.
What are you making up? What specific about yours that won't work?
You have read a lot and never mentioned this before...
ImpactEngine has the word impact, you should of said a while ago...
Your chatting out your backside.
I explain this one and then you say this.
Curiosity killed the cat? Now it's Explained woken the dog.
YOU WOULD OF GAVE YOU'RE IDEA FOR EVIDENCE BUT NO.
YOU COULD OF CAME UP WITH A CRYPTIC CLUE OF IT OR THE INITIALS OF THE WORDS.
You're have to contest after a year after my initial patent application.
They won't waste their time with you. In fact you may end up being accused of fraud.
Is that a threat? Take it as you like.
Um, I think you need to chill out. I don't know what you're getting worked up about. My idea was to use a piston that moves forward very quickly, thus forcing the ship to move as well. Then the piston would be retracted back to its starting position very slowly in order to prevent it from pulling the ship backwards. Then the piston would be slammed forward again to repeat the cycle. I abandoned that idea long ago because I now know that Newton's laws prevent it from working. The ship would wobble around its center of gravity and it would not gain any net forward movement. No matter how quickly or slowly I decided to move the piston, it would make no difference.
Can you repeat that?
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 22:37:28
Second stage is good. Slowly. But not the problem compared to the first.
First stage is incorrect as obviously yours would be a problem.
Need to drive forward slow to fast consistently as not to make the vehicle move. Too soon and will do what you can't prevent. Too slow and not enough energy for impact.
This is obvious once you take a second attempt at it though you obviously have not.
Congratulations, you have worked out how my"Birds Fly".
Post by: Kryptid on 30/09/2017 22:42:59
Never mind kryptic you have repeated yourself.
Second stage is good. Slowly. But not the problem compared to the first.
First stage is incorrect as obviously yours would be a problem.
Need to drive forward slow to fast consistently as not to make the vehicle move. Too soon and will do what you can't prevent. Too slow and not enough energy for impact.
This is obvious once you take a second attempt at it though you obviously have not.
Congratulations, you have worked out how my"Birds Fly".
Yes, I know that my idea would not have worked. Hence why I abandoned it. You can't generate net forward movement just by shifting a weight around inside of an object, no matter how quickly or slowly.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 22:54:38
Never mind kryptic you have repeated yourself.
Second stage is good. Slowly. But not the problem compared to the first.
First stage is incorrect as obviously yours would be a problem.
Need to drive forward slow to fast consistently as not to make the vehicle move. Too soon and will do what you can't prevent. Too slow and not enough energy for impact.
This is obvious once you take a second attempt at it though you obviously have not.
Congratulations, you have worked out how my"Birds Fly".
Yes, I know that my idea would not have worked. Hence why I abandoned it. You can't generate net forward movement just by shifting a weight around inside of an object, no matter how quickly or slowly.
I said slow TO fast.
You said slowly OR quickly.
Can you not read? Or are you up to court?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/09/2017 22:59:51
Sounds to me like he wants to dangle a carrot in front of a rocket and he does not know how the pigeons he keeps flies.Never mind kryptic you have repeated yourself.
Second stage is good. Slowly. But not the problem compared to the first.
First stage is incorrect as obviously yours would be a problem.
Need to drive forward slow to fast consistently as not to make the vehicle move. Too soon and will do what you can't prevent. Too slow and not enough energy for impact.
This is obvious once you take a second attempt at it though you obviously have not.
Congratulations, you have worked out how my"Birds Fly".
Yes, I know that my idea would not have worked. Hence why I abandoned it. You can't generate net forward movement just by shifting a weight around inside of an object, no matter how quickly or slowly.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 23:01:26
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 23:08:45
Sounds to me like he wants to dangle a carrot in front of a rocket and he does not know how the pigeons he keeps flies.Never mind kryptic you have repeated yourself.
Second stage is good. Slowly. But not the problem compared to the first.
First stage is incorrect as obviously yours would be a problem.
Need to drive forward slow to fast consistently as not to make the vehicle move. Too soon and will do what you can't prevent. Too slow and not enough energy for impact.
This is obvious once you take a second attempt at it though you obviously have not.
Congratulations, you have worked out how my"Birds Fly".
Yes, I know that my idea would not have worked. Hence why I abandoned it. You can't generate net forward movement just by shifting a weight around inside of an object, no matter how quickly or slowly.
It's about the force. If force from one moment to the next is strong enough then the vehicle will move backwards.
Yes, I doubt will get it perfect but will be profitable.
As I said, like Birds fly but not as birds fly. Birds flap hard down but gently up, thus a difference in force/energy. If birds can fly then so can an ImpactEngine :)
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 23:11:29
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 23:14:04
Put strong down and slowly up together and that is my proof of the equivalent of my Slowly to Quickly.
Don't be stupid people, patent offices don't take kindly to stupid people I neither do I.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/09/2017 23:53:19
Birds use the air currents to help them fly , are you saying you making some sort of invention that flaps its wings?Sounds to me like he wants to dangle a carrot in front of a rocket and he does not know how the pigeons he keeps flies.Never mind kryptic you have repeated yourself.
Second stage is good. Slowly. But not the problem compared to the first.
First stage is incorrect as obviously yours would be a problem.
Need to drive forward slow to fast consistently as not to make the vehicle move. Too soon and will do what you can't prevent. Too slow and not enough energy for impact.
This is obvious once you take a second attempt at it though you obviously have not.
Congratulations, you have worked out how my"Birds Fly".
Yes, I know that my idea would not have worked. Hence why I abandoned it. You can't generate net forward movement just by shifting a weight around inside of an object, no matter how quickly or slowly.
It's about the force. If force from one moment to the next is strong enough then the vehicle will move backwards.
Yes, I doubt will get it perfect but will be profitable.
As I said, like Birds fly but not as birds fly. Birds flap hard down but gently up, thus a difference in force/energy. If birds can fly then so can an ImpactEngine :)
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: paulggriffiths on 30/09/2017 23:55:59
There's clever adults and clever teens.
Then there's serious people...
Post by: guest39538 on 01/10/2017 00:01:38
Thebox, yes sorry I got it wrong. ;)Because what you are talking about really is high impact relative velocity. A notion already used in movies such as the A-team movie. In this movie they fall from the sky in a tank. They use high impact velocity to slow down the tanks decent. I suppose in principle it would actually work though.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 01/10/2017 00:11:22
Thebox, yes sorry I got it wrong. ;)Because what you are talking about really is high impact relative velocity. A notion already used in movies such as the A-team movie. In this movie they fall from the sky in a tank. They use high impact velocity to slow down the tanks decent. I suppose in principle it would actually work though.
If that's true? Yes, but my way and mine only to patent.
Ok, if i'm not the first to imagine such then i'm the clever enough one to get it to work.
It's about the importance of it and after 1.5 years of age and a semi-floating wheel.
You would have to prove pre-existance on how birds fly to back up the doubt as it gave me confidence of forces.
It's also about the confidence of wanting to make it work, 49 inventions I think is enough.
Mine is moving the weight slowly to quickly, a more advanced attempt thus not the same.
Hover vehicle is the next stage after road vehicle, not the same as a movie gimmick.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/10/2017 00:17:01
err....have you ever seen an old american civil war movie and cannon fire? This would not be new, the cannon ball is propelled forward but the cannon is propelled backwards. The high impact of explosive charge and the cannon ball changing the velocity of the cannon and ball.Thebox, yes sorry I got it wrong. ;)Because what you are talking about really is high impact relative velocity. A notion already used in movies such as the A-team movie. In this movie they fall from the sky in a tank. They use high impact velocity to slow down the tanks decent. I suppose in principle it would actually work though.
If that's true? Yes, but my way and mine only to patent.
Ok, if i'm not the first to imagine such then i'm the clever enough one to get it to work.
It's about the importance of it and after 1.5 years of age and a semi-floating wheel.
You would have to prove pre-existance on how birds fly to back up the doubt as it gave me confidence of forces.
It's also about the confidence of wanting to make it work, 49 inventions I think is enough.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Now for cannon and ball to go the opposite directions, they would have to apply equal and opposing forces.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/10/2017 00:21:30
Quote
Mine is moving the weight slowly to quickly, a more advanced attempt thus not the same
That would be a dampening spring for the recoil.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 01/10/2017 00:36:05
There is no spring and no recoil,it's not a gun... it's a moving object within a vehicle.QuoteMine is moving the weight slowly to quickly, a more advanced attempt thus not the same
That would be a dampening spring for the recoil.
I tell you what people, ill put in my patent, then you all can argue it out.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 01/10/2017 01:05:14
Thebox, yes sorry I got it wrong. ;)Because what you are talking about really is high impact relative velocity. A notion already used in movies such as the A-team movie. In this movie they fall from the sky in a tank. They use high impact velocity to slow down the tanks decent. I suppose in principle it would actually work though.
If that's true? Yes, but my way and mine only to patent.
Ok, if i'm not the first to imagine such then i'm the clever enough one to get it to work.
It's about the importance of it and after 1.5 years of age and a semi-floating wheel.
You would have to prove pre-existance on how birds fly to back up the doubt as it gave me confidence of forces.
It's also about the confidence of wanting to make it work, 49 inventions I think is enough.
Mine is moving the weight slowly to quickly, a more advanced attempt thus not the same.
Hover vehicle is the next stage after road vehicle, not the same as a movie gimmick.
Looking back at this I have to reevaluate it, it's not the same thing other than the words "high impact relative velocity". Firing something and an ImpactDrive is not the same.
Think about the future and a mass of people going against a 50 inventions inventor. Society would go right down hill.
Blowing my own trumpet here.
I have been alive for something like 1,356,048,000 seconds and only a few moments have I picked on somebody. I had a hovering wheel at 1.5 years of age, an inventor at that age, It's not a "Normal" thing compared to most people...
I can't stand bullies. I have never put up with it either if I think it will be repeated.
Post by: Kryptid on 01/10/2017 02:20:21
On the return stroke, when the weight is being pushed down, the same amount of force will push the ship up now. It doesn't matter if this force is the same as the up-stroke (150 kilonewtons), more than the upstroke or less than the upstroke: you get the same result. The ship is pushed in the opposite direction of the weight until the weight stops moving, at which point the ship stops moving too. It's inevitable. You can do the math yourself if you are unconvinced.
Birds do not fly by this principle. They fly by pushing air downward. If you take careful note of how a bird's wings are positioned during flight, you will notice that the angle of attack of the wings changes as they move up and down. It is not at all like moving a weight up and down to create movement.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/10/2017 08:49:32
Thebox, yes sorry I got it wrong. ;)And there are serious clever people- who understand that this proves that your project won't work.
There's clever adults and clever teens.
Then there's serious people...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
I realise that you don't understand it, but that doesn't stop it being true.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/10/2017 08:58:26
I have been alive for something like 1,356,048,000 secondsThat's about forty odd years, so this claim you made earlier isn't true, is it?
Been occasionally thinking about this before the internet when young. Then the internet came out and with that power was wondering
You were not alive before the internet was here.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 01/10/2017 09:32:44
I have been alive for something like 1,356,048,000 secondsThat's about forty odd years, so this claim you made earlier isn't true, is it?Been occasionally thinking about this before the internet when young. Then the internet came out and with that power was wondering
You were not alive before the internet was here.
Originally it was for academics and such over phone lines.
Remember when BBC had it's first address?Around then.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 01/10/2017 09:36:02
Wrong webpage bandit, that's angles, and not related to relative impact.Thebox, yes sorry I got it wrong. ;)And there are serious clever people- who understand that this proves that your project won't work.
There's clever adults and clever teens.
Then there's serious people...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
I realise that you don't understand it, but that doesn't stop it being true.
Go Chemist...
Post by: paulggriffiths on 01/10/2017 09:37:06
Your impact drive will not work. You get the same amount of movement whether you move a weight quickly or slowly. The only difference it creates is the amount of time it takes for the weight to move a certain distance up and down. If you have a weight in a vehicle that is floating in space above the Earth and you push that weight up with a force of 150 kilonewtons, the rest of the ship will be pushed down by 150 kilonewtons as well. That is Newton's third law in action. For every action (the weight being pushed up) there is an equal and opposite reaction (the ship being pushed down by the same amount of force). Once the weight stops moving, there will no longer be a force acting on the ship at all and it will stop moving altogether.I'm glad you enjoyed the time...
On the return stroke, when the weight is being pushed down, the same amount of force will push the ship up now. It doesn't matter if this force is the same as the up-stroke (150 kilonewtons), more than the upstroke or less than the upstroke: you get the same result. The ship is pushed in the opposite direction of the weight until the weight stops moving, at which point the ship stops moving too. It's inevitable. You can do the math yourself if you are unconvinced.
Birds do not fly by this principle. They fly by pushing air downward. If you take careful note of how a bird's wings are positioned during flight, you will notice that the angle of attack of the wings changes as they move up and down. It is not at all like moving a weight up and down to create movement.
Newtons laws of motion are not motion and then impact. It had a result didn't it? Needs to controlled.
I'm not expecting 100% efficiency, expecting 60-75% but as I have as good as unlimited energy, who cares.
Anyway, devote your time to your own project? Then you can complain to yourself... got to more interesting than complaining to a computer screen? uuh?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/10/2017 10:16:32
Wrong webpage bandit, that's angles, and not related to relative impact.
Go Chemist...
I said you wouldn't understand it.
I will try to explain.
The law of conservation of momentum proves that a ship in space can't move without, in effect, something to push against.
Noether's theorem shows that the conservation law is true.
It's a mathematical proof that it's true; there's no real "wriggle room".
So, you can't move a ship by waving stuff around in it.
So your "invention" can not work.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/10/2017 13:20:51
Wrong webpage bandit, that's angles, and not related to relative impact.
Go Chemist...
I said you wouldn't understand it.
I will try to explain.
The law of conservation of momentum proves that a ship in space can't move without, in effect, something to push against.
Noether's theorem shows that the conservation law is true.
It's a mathematical proof that it's true; there's no real "wriggle room".
So, you can't move a ship by waving stuff around in it.
So your "invention" can not work.
Isn't that like saying a rocket has no thrust in space?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/10/2017 14:29:14
No, it isn't.
Isn't that like saying a rocket has no thrust in space?
If it had been like saying something that's clearly not true, I'd not have said it.
A rocket has thrust because it pushes the hot gases out the back.
Gas goes one way and the rocket goes the other.
Post by: Kryptid on 01/10/2017 14:56:00
I'm glad you enjoyed the time...
Newtons laws of motion are not motion and then impact. It had a result didn't it? Needs to controlled.
I'm not expecting 100% efficiency, expecting 60-75% but as I have as good as unlimited energy, who cares.
Anyway, devote your time to your own project? Then you can complain to yourself... got to more interesting than complaining to a computer screen? uuh?
Fine. If you're not interested in learning why your device cannot possibly work, I won't bother you about it any further.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 01/10/2017 16:37:12
Post by: paulggriffiths on 01/10/2017 17:10:15
No, it isn't.
Isn't that like saying a rocket has no thrust in space?
If it had been like saying something that's clearly not true, I'd not have said it.
A rocket has thrust because it pushes the hot gases out the back.
Gas goes one way and the rocket goes the other.
What it should be is a resizable outlet with the walls at a slight angle as when the jet increases it gets wider and due to angles efficiency is lost.
1,000,000 jets * £1,000 = another £1,000,000,000 to me! ;D
Or I get 25% of the profit from the less fuel. £10,000,000,000,000 8)
You wouldn't want the jet to be any wider than the outlet. You could lose up to 1/2 the power at the outer.
Replace the blades with my advanced propeller and even better!
Thanks Chemist. Go Chemist!
Post by: paulggriffiths on 01/10/2017 17:49:53
Any calculators or equations?
Post by: Kryptid on 01/10/2017 18:02:31
If I throw an object 10 mph up in to the air, I need to know how gravity will affect it in math over time.
Any calculators or equations?
This might help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_body (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_body). Keep in mind that the time it takes for an object to reach its maximum height after being thrown upward is equal to the time it takes for that same object to fall back down to your level. If you know the mass and kinetic energy of the object being thrown, you can calculate how high it will go by using the gravitational potential energy calculator I posted earlier. These equations, however, are only valid in a vacuum. Although you can calculate drag due to the air, it adds an extra layer of complication and is strongly dependent upon the shape of the object.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/10/2017 18:52:20
Or I get 25% of the profit from the less fuel. £10,000,000,000,000
That's roughly the USA's current annual GDP.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 01/10/2017 19:00:14
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/10/2017 19:18:12
Bored Chemist, I like you, or more to the point I don't, and more so you saying not possible! I saying, the good, bad & you're ugly.Whether I'm good bad or ugly isn't the point, is it?
This is a science web page,and you are not doing anything like science.
You are just sticking words together.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 01/10/2017 19:20:59
... and numbers with 2 of the fundamental forces of physics. Fancy going on a journey to the edge of the universe?Bored Chemist, I like you, or more to the point I don't, and more so you saying not possible! I saying, the good, bad & you're ugly.Whether I'm good bad or ugly isn't the point, is it?
This is a science web page,and you are not doing anything like science.
You are just sticking words together.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/10/2017 19:30:34
Fancy going on a journey to the edge of the universe?Yes, but you haven't come up with anything like a means to get there.
Post by: evan_au on 01/10/2017 19:31:06
Quote from: Kryptid
You can't generate net forward movement just by shifting a weight around inside of an object, no matter how quickly or slowly.There is a way this could work - if the object is sitting on a surface which experiences slip/stick friction.
Accelerating a piston gradually does not generate enough force to overcome the stickiness of the friction.
Stopping the piston quickly does generate a high force (for a short time), overcomes the sticking friction, and will slip the object forward (for a short distance).
It won't help a bird fly, as air is a Newtonian fluid, and does not exhibit slip/stick friction.
It won't accelerate a spaceship either, as a vacuum does not exhibit slick/stick friction (or friction of any kind).
Post by: paulggriffiths on 01/10/2017 20:10:23
Quote from: KryptidYou can't generate net forward movement just by shifting a weight around inside of an object, no matter how quickly or slowly.There is a way this could work - if the object is sitting on a surface which experiences slip/stick friction.
Accelerating a piston gradually does not generate enough force to overcome the stickiness of the friction.
Stopping the piston quickly does generate a high force (for a short time), overcomes the sticking friction, and will slip the object forward (for a short distance).
It won't help a bird fly, as air is a Newtonian fluid, and does not exhibit slip/stick friction.
It won't accelerate a spaceship either, as a vacuum does not exhibit slick/stick friction (or friction of any kind).
Well said...
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/10/2017 20:55:39
And it's no use whatsoever in air, never mind in space.Quote from: KryptidYou can't generate net forward movement just by shifting a weight around inside of an object, no matter how quickly or slowly.There is a way this could work - if the object is sitting on a surface which experiences slip/stick friction.
Accelerating a piston gradually does not generate enough force to overcome the stickiness of the friction.
Stopping the piston quickly does generate a high force (for a short time), overcomes the sticking friction, and will slip the object forward (for a short distance).
It won't help a bird fly, as air is a Newtonian fluid, and does not exhibit slip/stick friction.
It won't accelerate a spaceship either, as a vacuum does not exhibit slick/stick friction (or friction of any kind).
Well said...
So you have a "space ship" that can crawl inefficiently along the ground, yet you think it's going to earn you more money than the entire US produces in a year
LOL
Do you understand why I think your ideas have no credibility?
Post by: paulggriffiths on 01/10/2017 21:21:03
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.240.com.au%2FFinal_Furlong_3.1.jpg&hash=f3da80d012d8abe9736dc35715a32cac)And it's no use whatsoever in air, never mind in space.Quote from: KryptidYou can't generate net forward movement just by shifting a weight around inside of an object, no matter how quickly or slowly.There is a way this could work - if the object is sitting on a surface which experiences slip/stick friction.
Accelerating a piston gradually does not generate enough force to overcome the stickiness of the friction.
Stopping the piston quickly does generate a high force (for a short time), overcomes the sticking friction, and will slip the object forward (for a short distance).
It won't help a bird fly, as air is a Newtonian fluid, and does not exhibit slip/stick friction.
It won't accelerate a spaceship either, as a vacuum does not exhibit slick/stick friction (or friction of any kind).
Well said...
So you have a "space ship" that can crawl inefficiently along the ground, yet you think it's going to earn you more money than the entire US produces in a year
LOL
Do you understand why I think your ideas have no credibility?
I want a family 10 generation's patent actually.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/10/2017 21:41:13
Do you understand why I think your ideas have no credibility?
Post by: paulggriffiths on 01/10/2017 22:01:02
Do you understand why I think your ideas have no credibility?
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-zHazxzyJNe0%2FUAkkhVpKoiI%2FAAAAAAAABIY%2FCwTPNAj8ynY%2Fs1600%2Fnoughts1.jpg&hash=bc7dbb269c8ec502d86c645d5e286c1a)
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/10/2017 22:03:30
[So, that's a "no" then.Do you understand why I think your ideas have no credibility?Please disregard all previous signatures.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 01/10/2017 22:05:19
[So, that's a "no" then.Do you understand why I think your ideas have no credibility?Please disregard all previous signatures.
(https://i1.wp.com/insights.nursekillam.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/animal-17474_1920.jpg?fit=552%2C510)
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/10/2017 22:19:40
One reason why you don't have any credibility is that when someone asks you a question, you post nonsense.
Another is that you say things that are clearly not right.
Posting pictures of chimps is yet another thing that makes it clear that you are not able to engage in sensible discussion.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 01/10/2017 22:45:16
OK, I will try to explain.
One reason why you don't have any credibility is that when someone asks you a question, you post nonsense.
Another is that you say things that are clearly not right.
Posting pictures of chimps is yet another thing that makes it clear that you are not able to engage in sensible discussion.
You're only 152 messages...
Post by: Kryptid on 01/10/2017 23:04:32
Quote from: KryptidYou can't generate net forward movement just by shifting a weight around inside of an object, no matter how quickly or slowly.There is a way this could work - if the object is sitting on a surface which experiences slip/stick friction.
Accelerating a piston gradually does not generate enough force to overcome the stickiness of the friction.
Stopping the piston quickly does generate a high force (for a short time), overcomes the sticking friction, and will slip the object forward (for a short distance).
It won't help a bird fly, as air is a Newtonian fluid, and does not exhibit slip/stick friction.
It won't accelerate a spaceship either, as a vacuum does not exhibit slick/stick friction (or friction of any kind).
Ah yes, I've seen just such devices "work" on Youtube videos due to this friction effect. As you say, it won't work for flight or space travel.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 01/10/2017 23:06:45
Post by: Kryptid on 02/10/2017 01:30:26
Bored Chemist & Kryptid, what would you're chosen projects be?
I've thought about a lot of potential inventions in the past, but I don't have any that are occupying me at the moment. Most of these are from my high school/pre-high school days:
- Perpetual motion machine based on permanent magnets (would not have worked).
- Perpetual motion machine based on a nuclear fusion-nuclear fission plant combination (would not have worked).
- Antigravity device based on a laser-powered, spinning, superconducting disk (would not have worked).
- Laser-like device that shoots a beam of negative energy to cool things off instead of heating them up (would not have worked).
- Fusion reactor that uses neutrons generated by a fission reactor to produce energy (would make too little energy to be practical).
- "Solar panel" that uses a magnifying glass to heat up a thermocouple to generate power (probably too inefficient).
- Cold fusion reactor that uses atoms where the electrons are replaced by W- bosons (would not have worked due to instability of W- bosons).
- "Solar panel" that uses hydrogen fluoride vaporizing and then condensing to produce power as it uses a mobile shade to cool off or warm up the container of hydrogen fluoride (probably too inefficient).
My track record of ideas isn't too good, though sometimes I have come up with ideas similar to other people. I sort of independently came up with the idea of an exoskeletal engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoskeletal_engine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoskeletal_engine) while at work one day, although the difference between my design and the one on the Wiki is that mine would have rotor blades attached to both an outer spool and an inner spool (in order to make the best use of both the tensile and compressive strength of the rotor blades). I've also thought up a lot of molecules, usually explosives and network solids. However, in those cases, it would probably be better to say I "discovered" the possibility of the structures instead of "inventing" them. Others have found many of those same structures independently, however (nitryl cyanide, for example).
Post by: alancalverd on 02/10/2017 07:29:16
Post by: evan_au on 03/10/2017 03:06:31
Quote from: Kryptid
I've thought about a lot of potential inventions in the past...
- Perpetual motion machine based on permanent magnets (would not have worked).....
Quote from: Queen, in Alice through the Looking Glass
'When I was your age, I always (believed in impossible things) for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.There is no shame in dreaming up impossible things.
- The important thing is that you quickly understand why they are impossible
- And then go on to something which is possible
- Many advances in science and engineering have come about through understanding the limits of a technology, and finding some "loophole" or "exception case" where the normal limits can be exceeded
Quote from: evan_au
It won't help a bird fly, as air is a Newtonian fluid, and does not exhibit slip/stick friction.Thinking about it some more, there may be an exception to this normal behavior of air: as you approach the supersonic range, air exhibits some nonlinear behavior.
You may be able to propel an aeroplane by having a ram which pushes behind at supersonic speeds, and then retracts more slowly.
It would be horribly inefficient. It would also be very annoying, as it would emit a continual stream of sonic booms, even when hovering.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)#Wave_drag_in_transonic_and_supersonic_flow
Post by: paulggriffiths on 06/10/2017 09:31:05
Post by: evan_au on 06/10/2017 17:53:43
Quote from: paulgriffiths
my pistons engine design has improved...up to 200 times more power efficient engine compared to current technologyCurrent technology for piston engines in cars is around 20% efficiency.
200 times better is - 4000% efficiency!
That means you get 40 times the energy out than what you put in.
This is a "Perpetual Motion Machine of the first kind", something that violates the laws of thermodynamics.
Take a working model to the patent office, and you will make a billion dollars (unless someone comes up with a quite different way that produces 50 times the input energy...).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Classification
Post by: Kryptid on 06/10/2017 20:25:40
Current technology for piston engines in cars is around 20% efficiency.
200 times better is - 4000% efficiency!
That means you get 40 times the energy out than what you put in.
This is a "Perpetual Motion Machine of the first kind", something that violates the laws of thermodynamics.
Take a working model to the patent office, and you will make a billion dollars (unless someone comes up with a quite different way that produces 50 times the input energy...).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Classification
I was going to make a comment exactly like this one when I got off from work. Looks like you beat me to it. Now I have to wonder what kind of math paulgriffiths used to reach his "200 times more power efficient" figure.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/10/2017 20:54:10
Would you like to add some sense to that?OK, I will try to explain.
One reason why you don't have any credibility is that when someone asks you a question, you post nonsense.
Another is that you say things that are clearly not right.
Posting pictures of chimps is yet another thing that makes it clear that you are not able to engage in sensible discussion.
You're only 152 messages...
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/10/2017 20:55:26
Bored Chemist & Kryptid, what would you're chosen projects be?Mine would be
Irrelevant to the thread and to the question of whether or not your pipe dreams would work.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 07/10/2017 05:18:42
Bored Chemist & Kryptid, what would you're chosen projects be?Mine would be
Irrelevant to the thread and to the question of whether or not your pipe dreams would work.
OK Chemist, I know you like not liking me which is fine and not a problem...
So, are you a capable problem solver?
Using math "how do you know if you have entered a door frame and not gone around it from one moment to the next?"
(https://s11.postimg.org/v9ti0z06r/parallax4.jpg)
Post by: paulggriffiths on 07/10/2017 05:57:33
Current technology for piston engines in cars is around 20% efficiency.
200 times better is - 4000% efficiency!
That means you get 40 times the energy out than what you put in.
This is a "Perpetual Motion Machine of the first kind", something that violates the laws of thermodynamics.
Take a working model to the patent office, and you will make a billion dollars (unless someone comes up with a quite different way that produces 50 times the input energy...).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Classification
I was going to make a comment exactly like this one when I got off from work. Looks like you beat me to it. Now I have to wonder what kind of math paulgriffiths used to reach his "200 times more power efficient" figure.
Well, goes like this, if can give it 10 times more power then can make it 10 times smaller at the original power output, thus also 10 times lighter... thus somewhere up to 100 times more efficient.
Now, car engines are terribly inefficient because cars weight 100 people and if 1 person can push a car 10 mph then 100 could push it 1000 mph if using some sort of gear.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 07/10/2017 06:20:50
So, all new motors, speakers should be shielded.
Edit: Looking at this:
(https://listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/20110405121342_450.jpg)
https://listverse.com/2011/06/19/10-differences-between-the-north-and-south-poles/
I may suggest this is true as read part "Hole in the Ozone Layer"
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/10/2017 07:08:04
Irrelevant to the thread and to the question of whether or not your pipe dreams would work
Irrelevant to the thread and to the question of whether or not your pipe dreams would work
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/10/2017 07:08:40
Something I am wondering about is, if we have so many magnets have we changed the north pole? Is the effect now wider or more concentrated as most magnets are in the northern hemisphere.You need to read up on the inverse cube law for a start.
So, all new motors, speakers should be shielded.
Edit: Looking at this:
(https://listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/20110405121342_450.jpg)
https://listverse.com/2011/06/19/10-differences-between-the-north-and-south-poles/
I may suggest this is true as read part "Hole in the Ozone Layer"
Post by: evan_au on 07/10/2017 11:32:38
Quote from: paulgriffiths
if 1 person can push a car 10 mph then 100 could push it 1000 mph if using some sort of gear.The power to overcome air resistance grows as something like the square of the speed. So using 100 times the power will not get you 100 times the speed.
The air resistance increases even faster as you approach the speed of sound, so you won't reach 1000 mph this way.
This sounds like the argument "If one woman can deliver a baby in 9 months, then 9 women could deliver a baby in 1 month". It just leaves out too many factors.
Show us a photo of your working model, and report on what power it can produce!
Post by: paulggriffiths on 07/10/2017 12:52:02
Something I am wondering about is, if we have so many magnets have we changed the north pole? Is the effect now wider or more concentrated as most magnets are in the northern hemisphere.You need to read up on the inverse cube law for a start.
So, all new motors, speakers should be shielded.
Edit: Looking at this:
(https://listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/20110405121342_450.jpg)
https://listverse.com/2011/06/19/10-differences-between-the-north-and-south-poles/
I may suggest this is true as read part "Hole in the Ozone Layer"
Yes, seems not good especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_accelerator, http://www-elsa.physik.uni-bonn.de/accelerator_list.html
Cars moving too? Stroking metal against a magnet makes them magnetic though cars change direction. (1 meter engine * 1500 meters * 10 * 365 days * billion cars is a lot of meters(5,475,000,000,000,000 or 5.5 quadrillion meters).
The earth's surface is 510,000,000 square miles(1,147,500,000,000,000 square meters).
5,475,000,000,000,000 / 1,147,500,000,000,000 = 4.77 times a year the total earth surface is stroked by car engines. A concern?
Earth may not have a core and may just contain metal? Say 1% metal. 3000 miles deep of it.
4.77 times over 100 years is 477 times a meter engine stroking the earth( about 1/3 mile).
1% of 3000 miles is 30 miles.
So we have stroked about 1/90th of the magnetic field?
So all Magnets & Electromagnetic devices must be shielded, Transport, Motors, Electricity Transformers, Wind Farms, Particle Accelerators etc...
Electricity cables too...
Post by: paulggriffiths on 07/10/2017 13:01:37
Quote from: paulgriffithsif 1 person can push a car 10 mph then 100 could push it 1000 mph if using some sort of gear.The power to overcome air resistance grows as something like the square of the speed. So using 100 times the power will not get you 100 times the speed.
The air resistance increases even faster as you approach the speed of sound, so you won't reach 1000 mph this way.
This sounds like the argument "If one woman can deliver a baby in 9 months, then 9 women could deliver a baby in 1 month". It just leaves out too many factors.
Show us a photo of your working model, and report on what power it can produce!
Yes is a problem... I'm open for donations... PayPal acceptable?
My father worked as Metal Machinist at British Aerospace for many years then for company producing custom parts from Quad-Bikes to anything else so get good advice.
Donate at http://strong-grip.com/
Post by: paulggriffiths on 07/10/2017 15:42:10
Something I am wondering about is, if we have so many magnets have we changed the north pole? Is the effect now wider or more concentrated as most magnets are in the northern hemisphere.You need to read up on the inverse cube law for a start.
So, all new motors, speakers should be shielded.
Edit: Looking at this:
(https://listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/20110405121342_450.jpg)
https://listverse.com/2011/06/19/10-differences-between-the-north-and-south-poles/
I may suggest this is true as read part "Hole in the Ozone Layer"
Yes, seems not good especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_accelerator, http://www-elsa.physik.uni-bonn.de/accelerator_list.html
Cars moving too? Stroking metal against a magnet makes them magnetic though cars change direction. (1 meter engine * 1500 meters * 10 * 365 days * billion cars is a lot of meters(5,475,000,000,000,000 or 5.5 quadrillion meters).
The earth's surface is 510,000,000 square miles(1,147,500,000,000,000 square meters).
5,475,000,000,000,000 / 1,147,500,000,000,000 = 4.77 times a year the total earth surface is stroked by car engines. A concern?
Earth may not have a core and may just contain metal? Say 1% metal. 3000 miles deep of it.
4.77 times over 100 years is 477 times a meter engine stroking the earth( about 1/3 mile).
1% of 3000 miles is 30 miles.
So we have stroked about 1/90th of the magnetic field?
So all Magnets & Electromagnetic devices must be shielded, Transport, Motors, Electricity Transformers, Wind Farms, Particle Accelerators, Speakers etc...
Electricity cables too...
This is NOT an emergency. If you don't know electronics don't go fixing your washing machine. (Motor will overheat or may not be as powerful, electronics will pump in more power, both burn out and cause a fire. If you advise anyone to do this then you will probably burn.
Since there is metal in the sea I see this only as a current temporary problem?
Post by: Kryptid on 07/10/2017 16:20:22
Post by: paulggriffiths on 07/10/2017 16:35:21
Humanity has practically nil effect on the properties of the Earth's core, so no, we are not changing the North Pole.
Well, stroking 4.77 times the earth surface with electric cars(being 1000's more influential than just metal is 3 miles of intense magnetism, will defiantly swing your compass.
It may remove faster that it is being produced. I'm sure your get lost with your compass in a street let alone a car park.
I would respect an electric car manufacturer that shields it's motors anyway because don't want the iron in my blood pulled to my skin. Or having iron deficiency(In women of childbearing age, the most common cause of iron deficiency anemia is a loss of iron in the blood due to heavy menstruation or pregnancy. A poor diet or certain intestinal diseases that affect how the body absorbs iron can also cause iron deficiency anemia.Iron is important because it helps you get enough oxygen throughout your body. ... If you do not have enough iron, your body makes fewer and smaller red blood cells . Then your body has less hemoglobin, and you cannot get enough oxygen. Iron deficiency is the most common cause of anemia.).
Post by: paulggriffiths on 07/10/2017 18:26:22
Humanity has practically nil effect on the properties of the Earth's core, so no, we are not changing the North Pole.
Just walked to shops for kebab and cars driving past...
Seawater contains no iron but does contain 0.1% magnesium. An electric car magnets could be 1000's times more magnetic influence than just metal. So 1000's * 0.1% is 1,000,000 times more influential than seawater which is probably the only stuff naturally moving on earth.
Get my drift/current when a car goes 70mph? Sea moves about 5mph. So electric cars are 12 million times stronger than the sea per square meter.
Sea is 315,000,000,000,000 square meters. So (1 billion cars * 12 million) / 315,000,000,000,000 = World using non shielded Electric car magnets being 38 times more influential problem than the sea.
So yes I would say our current magnets & electromagnets are already a concern.
I using math is clever and world shielding it's magnets & electromagnets will be wise.
Wisdom comes from knowledge.
Knowledge to do things.
Things that makes us love.
Love to make music.
P.G.Griffiths, 2014
Sooner the better to be honest because the loss may take a long long time to be replaced.
Smaller engines(plastic engines with metal pistons and walls), less metal too. Fiberglass, plastic, MDF...
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/10/2017 19:28:47
I would respect an electric car manufacturer that shields it's motors anyway because don't want the iron in my blood pulled to my skin.
\i would have no respect for a car manufacturer who didn't understand that the iron in blood isn't metallic and is actually slightly repelled by a magnetic field (as is water).
I also don't have much respect for people who randomly put nonsense in big letters and/ or funny colours.
I presume you forgot to read up on the inverse cube law too.
Don't you think it might be a good idea if you got over your delusions of adequacy, and learned some stuff before pontificating nonsense?
A magnetic compass still pretty much works as well as it did in Columbus's day.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 07/10/2017 19:41:23
I would respect an electric car manufacturer that shields it's motors anyway because don't want the iron in my blood pulled to my skin.
\i would have no respect for a car manufacturer who didn't understand that the iron in blood isn't metallic and is actually slightly repelled by a magnetic field (as is water).
I also don't have much respect for people who randomly put nonsense in big letters and/ or funny colours.
I presume you forgot to read up on the inverse cube law too.
Don't you think it might be a good idea if you got over your delusions of adequacy, and learned some stuff before pontificating nonsense?
A magnetic compass still pretty much works as well as it did in Columbus's day.
In animals, it is a component of hemoglobin — a protein in blood that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues in the body.
https://www.livescience.com/29263-iron.html
So although deoxygenated haemoglobin is paramagnetic and very slightly attracted to a magnet...
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/blood-magnetic
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/10/2017 19:48:46
In animals, it is a component of hemoglobin — a protein in blood that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues in the body.
https://www.livescience.com/29263-iron.html
Yes, I know...
So what?
haemoglobin is not magnetic.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 07/10/2017 19:56:28
In animals, it is a component of hemoglobin — a protein in blood that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues in the body.
https://www.livescience.com/29263-iron.html
Yes, I know...
So what?
haemoglobin is not magnetic.
So although deoxygenated haemoglobin is paramagnetic and very slightly attracted to a magnet...
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/blood-magnetic
deoxygenated? If you do not have enough iron, your body makes fewer and smaller red blood cells . Then your body has less hemoglobin, and you cannot get enough oxygen.
Snowball effect? Blood in the veins being blood that has used the oxygen, iron pulled to surface of veins... loosing iron... not getting enough oxygen... loosing more iron...
Loosing iron &hemoglobin.
Post by: Kryptid on 07/10/2017 20:02:42
Just walked to shops for kebab and cars driving past...
Seawater contains no iron but does contain 0.1% magnesium. An electric car magnets could be 1000's times more magnetic influence than just metal. So 1000's * 0.1% is 1,000,000 times more influential than seawater which is probably the only stuff naturally moving on earth.
Get my drift/current when a car goes 70mph? Sea moves about 5mph. So electric cars are 12 million times stronger than the sea per square meter.
Sea is 315,000,000,000,000 square meters. So (1 billion cars * 12 million) / 315,000,000,000,000 = World using non shielded Electric car magnets being 38 times more influential problem than the sea.
So yes I would say our current magnets & electromagnets are already a concern.
I using math is clever and world shielding it's magnets & electromagnets will be wise.
Wisdom comes from knowledge.
Knowledge to do things.
Things that makes us love.
Love to make music.
P.G.Griffiths, 2014
Sooner the better to be honest because the loss may take a long long time to be replaced.
Smaller engines(plastic engines with metal pistons and walls), less metal too. Fiberglass, plastic, MDF...
Your calculations make no sense.
(1) Magnesium is not ferromagnetic when it is a metal, let alone when it is an ion dissolved in water.
(2) Where did you get that figure for an electric car motor being thousands of times more magnetic than "just metal"? I'm guessing you pulled that out of thin air.
(3) The direction and velocity of both cars and seawater varies immensely.
(4) Knowing the surface area of seawater is insufficient to calculation how magnetic it is. You need to know its volume as well.
(5) As Bored Chemist pointed out, you aren't considering the inverse cube law.
Your calculations are completely meaningless.
Quote
deoxygenated? If you do not have enough iron, your body makes fewer and smaller red blood cells . Then your body has less hemoglobin, and you cannot get enough oxygen.
Snowball effect?
The magnetic fields of MRI machines are routinely over 40,000 times stronger than the Earth's magnetic field. If they don't harm hemoglobin, then a bunch of electric cars aren't going to either.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/10/2017 20:14:18
So although deoxygenated haemoglobin is paramagnetic and very slightly attracted to a magnet...Which has sod all squared to do with magnetic fields.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/blood-magnetic
deoxygenated? If you do not have enough iron, your body makes fewer and smaller red blood cells . Then your body has less hemoglobin, and you cannot get enough oxygen.
Snowball effect? Blood in the veins being blood that has used the oxygen, iron pulled to surface of veins... loosing iron... not getting enough oxygen... loosing more iron...
Loosing iron &hemoglobin.
I presume you still haven't read up on the inverse cube law.
Why is that?
Do you not want to find out the truth?
Are you so dead set against learning for some reason?
Post by: paulggriffiths on 07/10/2017 20:24:33
Just walked to shops for kebab and cars driving past...
Seawater contains no iron but does contain 0.1% magnesium. An electric car magnets could be 1000's times more magnetic influence than just metal. So 1000's * 0.1% is 1,000,000 times more influential than seawater which is probably the only stuff naturally moving on earth.
Get my drift/current when a car goes 70mph? Sea moves about 5mph. So electric cars are 12 million times stronger than the sea per square meter.
Sea is 315,000,000,000,000 square meters. So (1 billion cars * 12 million) / 315,000,000,000,000 = World using non shielded Electric car magnets being 38 times more influential problem than the sea.
So yes I would say our current magnets & electromagnets are already a concern.
I using math is clever and world shielding it's magnets & electromagnets will be wise.
Wisdom comes from knowledge.
Knowledge to do things.
Things that makes us love.
Love to make music.
P.G.Griffiths, 2014
Sooner the better to be honest because the loss may take a long long time to be replaced.
Smaller engines(plastic engines with metal pistons and walls), less metal too. Fiberglass, plastic, MDF...
Your calculations make no sense.
(1) Magnesium is not ferromagnetic when it is a metal, let alone when it is an ion dissolved in water.
(2) Where did you get that figure for an electric car motor being thousands of times more magnetic than "just metal"? I'm guessing you pulled that out of thin air.
(3) The direction and velocity of both cars and seawater varies immensely.
(4) Knowing the surface area of seawater is insufficient to calculation how magnetic it is. You need to know its volume as well.
(5) As Bored Chemist pointed out, you aren't considering the inverse cube law.
Your calculations are completely meaningless.Quotedeoxygenated? If you do not have enough iron, your body makes fewer and smaller red blood cells . Then your body has less hemoglobin, and you cannot get enough oxygen.
Snowball effect?
The magnetic fields of MRI machines are routinely over 40,000 times stronger than the Earth's magnetic field. If they don't harm hemoglobin, then a bunch of electric cars aren't going to either.
Now very strong magnets over many hours over many days is a lot of time compared to a MRI scan even if MRI is 40 times stronger(isit?).
sorry, sea is only at it's very deepest 7 miles. So 38 times will say is 15?
Magnesium is magnetic:
Magnetic ordering paramagnetic
Magnetic susceptibility +13.1·10−6 cm3/mol (298 K)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnesium
...
I'm the fastest mouse pointer in the west...
Post by: paulggriffiths on 07/10/2017 20:28:00
inverse cube law
I have, anyhoo cars don't fly in the sky...
Watch the video, magnets can lift 1000 times there weight...
So yes I would say our current magnets & electromagnets are already a concern.
Bored Chemist... the destroyer of planet earth... :( :o :-[ :'( :-X Available on DVD & Download, when was available... Sountrack was available on audiotape but got wiped... Was available on paperback but the ink ran in the 60 meters of raised sea levels because of Arctic ice melt.
Bored Chemist... the sole survivor... available but no one to buy it...
Post by: Kryptid on 07/10/2017 21:09:16
Now very strong magnets over many hours over many days is a lot of time compared to a MRI scan even if MRI is 40 times stronger(isit?).
You have any evidence that chronic exposure to strong magnetic fields has any effect on blood oxygen? Moreover, don't you realize just how weak a magnetic field from even something like a powerful neodymium magnet is if you are so much as ten feet from it? That's what makes the inverse cube law important: magnetic field strength falls off very rapidly with increasing distance.
Quote
sorry, sea is only at it's very deepest 7 miles. So 38 times will say is 12?
And what equations are you using to get that result?
Quote
Magnesium is magnetic:
Magnetic ordering paramagnetic
Magnetic susceptibility +13.1·10−6 cm3/mol (298 K)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnesium
I said ferromagnetic. That is the kind of magnetism that common magnets have. Paramagnetism is usually much, much weaker.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 07/10/2017 21:15:02
Now very strong magnets over many hours over many days is a lot of time compared to a MRI scan even if MRI is 40 times stronger(isit?).
You have any evidence that chronic exposure to strong magnetic fields has any effect on blood oxygen? Moreover, don't you realize just how weak a magnetic field from even something like a powerful neodymium magnet is if you are so much as ten feet from it? That's what makes the inverse cube law important: magnetic field strength falls off very rapidly with increasing distance.Quotesorry, sea is only at it's very deepest 7 miles. So 38 times will say is 12?
And what equations are you using to get that result?QuoteMagnesium is magnetic:
Magnetic ordering paramagnetic
Magnetic susceptibility +13.1·10−6 cm3/mol (298 K)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnesium
I said ferromagnetic. That is the kind of magnetism that common magnets have. Paramagnetism is usually much, much weaker.
Yes, so cars usually much, much stronger...
ten feet from it? At 2 feet wide... ouch...
Best keep picking your nose... though you won't find a brain.
And what equations are you using to get that result?
sorry, sea is only at it's very deepest 7 miles. So 38 times will say is 12?
I changed it to 15 about 30 minutes ago... I wish I was just like you...
krypdid is reading this page, about to say...
If we played a game of who can stay under water the longest... the water would not know the difference... water in the air? Or air starved of water...
Post by: Kryptid on 07/10/2017 22:55:05
Yes, so cars usually much, much stronger...
So how strong do you think a magnet in a car engine is? Can you give a measure in Gauss?
Quote
ten feet from it? At 2 feet wide... ouch...
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
Quote
Best keep picking your nose... though you won't find a brain.
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.
Quote
And what equations are you using to get that result?
sorry, sea is only at it's very deepest 7 miles. So 38 times will say is 12?
I changed it to 15 about 30 minutes ago... I wish I was just like you...[/quote]
Regardless of whether you put 12 or 15, I'm still waiting for you to provide the equations you used. Do you even know how to calculate the strength of a magnetic field?
Quote
If we played a game of who can stay under water the longest... the water would not know the difference... water in the air? Or air starved of water...
I don't know what relevance this has to the issue at hand.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 07/10/2017 23:17:21
Yes, so cars usually much, much stronger...
So how strong do you think a magnet in a car engine is? Can you give a measure in Gauss?Quoteten feet from it? At 2 feet wide... ouch...
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.QuoteBest keep picking your nose... though you won't find a brain.
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.QuoteAnd what equations are you using to get that result?
sorry, sea is only at it's very deepest 7 miles. So 38 times will say is 12?
I changed it to 15 about 30 minutes ago... I wish I was just like you...
Regardless of whether you put 12 or 15, I'm still waiting for you to provide the equations you used. Do you even know how to calculate the strength of a magnetic field?
Quote
If we played a game of who can stay under water the longest... the water would not know the difference... water in the air? Or air starved of water...
I don't know what relevance this has to the issue at hand.
[/quote]
Kryptid,
A. You're not a professional.
B. This is not you're topic.
C. This is not about your own personal gain.
D. Why worry about drying the floor when a flood is on it's way?
E. I have wrote a lot of math based on common sense.
F. uck you because days, months or years is best time spent on this.
G. Wise thinking is a two way process and you're only thinking one.
It's not like I'm stating the earth is a cube or the moon is the sun in the future...
Post by: Kryptid on 07/10/2017 23:38:32
A. You're not a professional.
Professional at what? Inventing? Unless you get paid for inventing, you're not a professional inventor either.
Quote
B. This is not you're topic.
I never thought that it was so that's irrelevant.
Quote
C. This is not about your own personal gain.
I never thought that it was so that's irrelevant.
Quote
D. Why worry about drying the floor when a flood is on it's way?
What is that supposed to mean?
Quote
E. I have wrote a lot of math based on common sense.
Common sense is often flawed. It's common sense that making a cube twice as tall makes it twice as heavy. It's common sense that time is the same for everyone. It's common sense that pushing a ruler from the rear end makes its front end move instantaneously. In all of these scenarios, common sense is wrong.
Your math is wrong too. If you want to know how to properly calculate the field strength of a magnet, look here: https://www.supermagnete.de/eng/faq/How-do-you-calculate-the-magnetic-flux-density (https://www.supermagnete.de/eng/faq/How-do-you-calculate-the-magnetic-flux-density). For magnetic fields created by liquids, look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory).
Quote
F. uck you.
I don't know why you get aggressive so easily.
Quote
G. Wise thinking is a two way process and you're only thinking one.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/10/2017 07:16:20
Magnesium is magnetic:No, it isn't.
Magnetic ordering paramagnetic
Magnetic susceptibility +13.1·10−6 cm3/mol (298 K)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnesium
...
I'm the fastest mouse pointer in the west...
You need to find out what paramagnetism is (and how weak it is) .
You may have the fastest mouse- but you clearly don't know where to point it.
Post by: Kryptid on 21/10/2017 16:18:39
Post by: Kryptid on 21/10/2017 20:19:57
I got banned on this thread for sticking up for myself on the repeated negativity.
You weren't merely sticking up for yourself, you were being rude and insulting towards other members (myself included). Why is behaving like a civil adult so much to ask for?
Post by: Kryptid on 21/10/2017 20:44:25
Eat the cake mate.
I see you haven't changed (not that I was expecting you to have). Weren't you banned once before? Why do the mods put up with this?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/10/2017 22:12:19
Here's the first of some pictures, it's a close up...All in all, it's just another brick in the wall.
A well, or chimney? Or...
Yes, I am claiming it.
I have read up on Wikipedia, timeline of human, bricks and this is something different.
t's also rudely off- topic.
Post by: Colin2B on 22/10/2017 09:39:34