It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

My message to an unbelieving world

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   
~L~

one word....."Gedankenexperimenten"
which translates to ...thought experiments


goodnight




posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 07:20 PM
link   
What got me was in your first post you stated you could tell all but then no one would need you. Dude, let me assure you, I didn't need you yesterday, i don't need you today and I won't need you tomorrow.

You need to either sh!t or get off the pot.


You could post whatever it is your dragging on about and it would instantly be shared with THOUSANDS of people who could spread it faster then lightening across the globe.

You're wasting allot of peoples time here.

Wupy



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   
First let me say my apology in that post for (pulling your chains) was meant for that post alone, particularly the first paragraph. The only reason I started it that way was many had alluded to it.
Secondly, and particularly to you mrwupy, kindly put me on ignore... I hate to waste time. I suggest all others who dislike fresh concepts do the same.

Third and what I feel is strange ...well not really, but untypical of ya'll is how when anyone posts a thread about religion or crop circles or anything for that matter, you jump in with all kinds of links or insults to disprove the poster. I am still waiting for that constructive criticism from anyone. For all that matter, I am curious why when I posted this...
debate challenge
Nobody jumped on the chance to prove his or her superior knowledge in the matter. I was at a point where I was willing to give you one of my posts effectively giving you 2 to 1 odds (your 4 posts my 2)
Granted it is in an ambiguous thread and probably not well read but that challenge stood for a while.

In truth, I know there probably isn't anyone here to challenge this; the logic is spelled out in plain English. Your silence speaks volumes doesn't it?

As far as peer revue, this site is denied ignorance isn't it? Maybe I took a wrong turn somewhere and wound up in the close your mind group, I don't know.

No matter, I did what I set out to do; the ball is in your court now. When you make that first million, remember me, I was thinking of you.

You wonder why I didn't just give it in my first post? My concerns stem from the real world.
The fact that the thread got moved to a discussion forum kind of hushes the whole thing in the long run doesn't it? The subject line might draw attention but the content is obscured and I question as to why it isn't a science technology thread when math is science and this is technology albeit down the road.
Regardless, the theory is sound, run with it.

I would still like to form that R&D discussion group though; skeptics are more than welcome as long you have something constructive to add.
If anyone wants to work on this with me, U2U me and we can set something up.

Thanks for your patience. I have learned considerably from the human psychology standpoint. I wonder what you expected? Had I the funding to have built it myself (and it wouldn't even cost all that much) I probably would have but then it too would have been suppressed. Thoughts and free speech, remember?
btw, you're welcome.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Had to read this first post a couple of times.Jeez at first I thought you might be contemplating suicide.Perpetual power?Dime a dozen on the devices built to demonstrate the feasibility over the years.Free energy?Check out Nikoli Tesla.I've read that he devised a way to transmit power through the air.He did it over a range of 23 miles and lit up 200 light bulbs and powered a small motor.Seems like pretty old news.

If anyone really wants to read up on perpetual motion try www.supernaturalminds.com and do a search on the topic.Tons of research material on it.

As long as there is money to be made from energy,it will never be free.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Thnx for the link, I book'd it.
Suicide? lol hardly, but then that would depend on who you ask.

The design I laid out above has potential for more than PPM or FE. R&D it for yourself, who knows what you will come up with aside from what I envision.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   
I think I know where you are at. Yes post it, show it, tell it. At least give everyone the option.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Build it.

Prove it.

There's a ton of websites and patents out there for devices, and none of them work (because if they did, a number of engineering companies (not the government... engineering companies from around the world) would have glommed onto it and would be making themselves and the inventor filthy rich.

So prove that your "thought experiment" is valid. Buid it and prove it.

If we sound harsh and skeptical, you have to understand that we get a large number of people every day announcing that they've overturned our understanding of science/philosphy/religion/aliens/etc, etc. However, it turns out that they've done a "it seems to me" thought experiment and they really don't understand the stuff they're working with.

So the board gets filled with their hot air. It doesn't impress anyone, either.

Don't be just another woo-woo website poster who's putting up "airplanes are held up by invisible djinns and I can prove it!" fluff and nonsense. If you've got the goods, then build the engine (and not on paper or computer models, either.)



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 12:29 AM
link   
I do want to build this. I also want to start a research group to look into design modifications for implementing it for various useages. A simple light is the easiest. Should we get hit with an EMP I feel this idea would be beneficial to everyone which is primarily why I posted it now. I consider others as a valuable resource in this too since maybe they will see something I don't.

Other usages are power generation etc but I laid all that out already.
Seeing is believing I guess. I see it , maybe becuase I've been looking at it for so long. Others will come to see the viability too... in time.
But yeah, I intend to build it. Been gathering my resources for awhile now.
... and if I can build it, anybody can. I don't have engineering in my background but I do have metal fabrication skills. I also did carpentry etc., so I don't see it as being a problem other than putting it together. However, I would still like it to be a collaborative effort for what might not seem so obvious reasons. Others will build it now too I'm sure. It's out there now.
And thanks for the stern voice
you remind me of my dad



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Yes....build it. Please. And go very public with it, as soon as possible. I went to the link in your posts. I know you love children. Do it for the children now, and all the future children. Thank you, good luck and God Bless!



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 06:59 AM
link   
And how is the design "out there" now? I have read and re-read all your posts and none really fully spell out your theory or design. And don't pull that "I have explained it fully" cop-out. All you have done is spit out a few (intentionally?) vague descriptions of geometric shapes and ratios.

And don't try to talk down to us like we're just can't understand it, your info has been way too vague. In one post you mention "a triangle spinning over a square". WOW, your blowing my mind!!! Stop it, I can't handle the truth! Either provide real details, concepts, equations and/or sketchs, or let this thread just die. We can kick the can around for weeks, but you're obviously either not capable of articulating your idea, don't intend too, or just don't have one.

I may be wrong about you, but so far you haven't given me a reason to think so.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:27 AM
link   
yadboy, if you are third eye blind and lack the ability to conceptualize I can't help you, nobody can and this thread was not meant for you. Your mood being "confuzzled" kind of explains it I guess. Theory and cerebral must elude your ability to comprehend.

Maybe if you understand my thought process it might help? Here is my description of a bicycle, a seat to sit on, a frame that holds two wheels that roll along the ground, and two peddles, one on each side that are peddled by each leg (human) connected to a chain that connects to the rear wheel that when peddled propels the bike forward. If you build one, put brakes on it in order to stop. (I won't spell out what brakes or wheels are since I take it as a given that you already know)

If it is the mathematical model (4,680 degrees instead of 360 for a cycle) that you are looking for, it too is simple enough. Take a circle, divide it into 240 points, each point is 1.5 degrees apart (13 x 1.5 = 19.5, 240 x 19.5=4,680) Go around the circle in 19.5 degree steps and you will go around that circle 13 times before you hit on all points once and end at the beginning.
As to letting this thread die out, I leave it up to you, I won't reply to what isn't asked or stated. If my description is too hard to follow ask me and I'll explain it further. Like I already said, I have been looking at it for so long it all seems simple enough to me. In other words, 4 points in a square configuration, driving 3 points in a triangular configuration with an additional 3 points near the top of that triangular configuration. Making the interactions is the fine tuning and since this hasn't been built by me or anybody else yet I can't give you the precision you are looking for... yet.

Maybe you just want me to write that check instead of my asking you to work for it?
People, just let this go. If you read my description and comprehend it, go with it. If you don't, don't waste your time. This is simple enough and yet it amazes me that some fail to see the principles involved or the viability of the design.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   
As I stated before you continue to talk down to anyway who doesn't see your "grand design". Maybe I'm a little to mechanical in my thought process (I am a mechanical drafter after all). I'm the type of guy would can do anything with good enough instructions. Maybe your instructions are a little to cerebral for me. I can accept that. I think I'm just losing something in your translation.

So if anyone else reading this thread can decipher what he getting at, please enlighten me. I never had a problem with techobabble before, but I just don't get what his guys trying to say. I understand your concept of the divided circle, but from there to perpetual motion is a huge leap.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   
yadboy I apologize, like I said I've been looking at it so long.
4 is greater than 3 and will overpower it when applied correctly (the 3 points on top that revolve in a smaller space is where to add that overpowering point of force.)
Also, each point of the square actually has 8 points of force, (N and S)not all aimed at the same point on the triangle. (It might even require 16 points in order to be effective, I wouldn't know until I R&D it) The push/pull principles applied where needed to have the desired effect. It isn't that hard if you start at one corner and work your way around it.
Perhaps the ambiguity is in not looking at it literally. Each corner of the square needs to be aimed at a point on the tetrahedron in a counter directional pattern. Start with one corner on the square and aim at one point on the lower part of the triangle. The magnets should be able to swivel to allow them to swing out of the way as well as into position for the next interaction.
The differential offset of the upper and lower points of the tetrahedron allow you to fine tune as to which point on the tirangular configuration to aim at.
Trial and error in fine tuning it is the only way to determine whether it is at the first corner of the square or the next, or the opposite, the lower or upper part of the tetrahedron, point one two or three lower and one two or three upper. There are a limited number of configurations possible and if I already knew the exact one I'd have built this already.
The point is that by all indications, there is an over-powering available there in the correct alignment. It is a viable design.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   
keybored,

I've just stumbled on this thread. I am sorry if people are being less than hospitable to your theories, but they have "seen it all before", even some truely fantastic claims.

In my oppinion what you need to do is a drawing of some kind that shows what you are trying to explain. The old quote of a picture is worth a thousand words, is in perfect relevence.

Personnally I cannot visualise this until it is front of me in black and white.

I hope you see that I am just trying to help and not discredit you.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I'm starting to see your concept. I think I am just thinking of it too literally. I tend to do that, I use to working with dimensioned assembly drawings. I've become spoiled in that respect.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Basically what you are saying is you THINK you know how to build a machine that MIGHT demonstrate perpetual motion. And that you have known how to do this for 10 years but never built it.

I'm sorry mate but you are just one amongst thousands.

Build it and change the world or stop trying to grab attention with vague hints and ramblings.

Because unfortunately, until you come up with a prototype that works you are indeed just one of the thousands of attention seekers. And this board is the perfect place for an attention seeker to come.

If you were serious you would submit your thoeries to reputable scientific journals where you would soon enough know whether you were a 'world changer' or merely yet another 'crank'.

But you have instead chosen to (and this is how it looks to me) drag out the interest of people here for as long as possible.

As others have said already... 'put up or shut up'

For the record, I would love for you to be the 'world changer'... god knows we are need of one.... I just don't think you are.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   
TheObserver, thanks, I aprreciate that.
DonkeyPlopPlop I do understand. I have understood. I have stated it probably for the 5th time now, I WANT to start a research group to explore this further. I appreciate the level of intellect here and ask for input hence my bringing it up in the first place. If there are others out there who build it first, I'll be the first to congratulate them. It all started here is what matters to me.
Yes I agree it needs to go before scientific review. Barring the scientific community (for the moment) you all are my reviewers. I see a concept that in theory doesn't have the inherent flaw so many design implementations before have had. Are there flaws in my theory? Probably, I am not infallible. However, as is (or should be) obvious, the math works. There is an over unity available there if we can find the right tuning of the forces and someday that fine tuning will make it so.
I give the concept and explain the principles that for all intensive purposes looks promising. Deny ignorance and open your minds and just accept this design on Faith. Get past that stumbling block and lets do this. It will work, I am sure of it. Math is science and without an equation we have nothing. The equation here is 4>3=perpetual motion. The next theory to be realized from this equation will be what brings us to levitation, propulsion and FTL.

Believe me, I have looked at the options available with this design and even though I might see more possibilities at the moment than the rest of you, that isn't to say that someone out there won't see a possibility I overlooked. All it takes is that first step in believing in the design.

Am I breaking the laws with the design? No, I don't think so. I utilize the laws to advantage and in a way that nobody has tried before. This can't be ruled out just because it hasn't been realized yet. It would be worthwhile to investigate the concept since I see the possibility as do all of you otherwise you would be hitting me with reasons it wouldn't work instead of asking me to explain it in further detail than can be provided without R&D.
Lets start that research here and change the world. Then we can all take pride in bringing this concept to fruition. I gave it to all of you, help me do it is all I ask. Show me the flaw and I will work around it. As stated (I know, in theory everything works lol) I don't see a problem with this design and if anyone here does, point it out since I won't know it until it is pointed out. I don't see this as some delusional thinking on my part, I see the viability of the design. All I/we need is to implement it. This is huge, a diamond in the rough. Can you label it a rock because it isn't polished?
C'mon guys, work with me here. Think for yourselves and picture the motion. All it takes is finding the right combination to unlock. 4 will overpower 3, its natural. Use the diameter to advantage, thats another natural.
Once we get the basic design tuned we can move forward from there. That is my ultimate goal, not merely making a device for a lightbulb or power generation. Wouldn't you like to levitate? Or travel beyond the stars and become a member of the interstellar crowd? Who knows what we will learn along the way and once we are there I am sure they have their own universities if you follow me. We have to learn to crawl, before we can FTL and who knows, ...time travel? If it is possible we will find it if we can just get past this first step.
For my part I am going to do computations on the various permeations. In time it will become evident. There are only a limited number of possiblities in a closed system. The starting point is the actual design. We have the framework in front of us. Lets fire this engine up.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Keybored,

Please do me a picture. I want to see it but I can't until it is layed out before me. I'm a layman you see



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Keybored,

I'm sorry but you just seem to be talking a lot without saying anything.

Spin a triangle inside a square! If you want people to engage you in sensible discussion you need to be a LOT more specific than this or you will rapidly be relegated in people's minds as a crank.

You say you have an infallible theory but you want the rest of us to help you. Sounds to me that you have a vague notion and you are hoping someone else will add to it.

Please spend more time explaining your idea and less time talking about how the idea will change the world. If you give a lot more detail about you idea you will find a lot of people will be a lot more forthcoming with their ideas.

Hurry keybored, 'cos I for one am getting bored.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   
sorry, suspend a tetrahedron over a square. My spinning a triangle over a square was only to point out that the contacts go counter to the rotation of the triangle. Like I said, I've been looking at it so long I see it but fail to communicate it.
I can sketch it out although without a scanner I couldn't capture the image.
I'll see what I can do in image editing software.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join