13 Year old boy Has Time Machine plan that might work

Improbable

gentillabdulla wrote: »

Check your private messages.

Here is the private message:

gentillabdulla wrote:

If you would like to hear the idea then I will tell you but only if you agree not to tell anyone else.

Post it here where people who know something about it can comment. You constantly contradict yourself about what you've done etc. I'm just gonna call shenanigans and leave it there unless something of actual substance is put forward. Good day.

gentillabdulla

Improbable wrote: »

Here is the private message:



Post it here where people who know something about it can comment. You constantly contradict yourself about what you've done etc. I'm just gonna call shenanigans and leave it there unless something of actual substance is put forward. Good day.

I'm waiting until it's ready enough to be published in a magazine.

I will give excerpts though.

Well good day to you.

gentillabdulla

old_aussie wrote: »

You say "plastic magnet" WTF, your dreaming

http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28601
Very inefficient however.

gentillabdulla

old_aussie wrote: »

If what you say is possible every government in the would want your plan.

Our government, as far any government, doesn't have access to energy comparable to a supernovae of a star that is about 3.2 solar masses after the ejection of matter.(As far as I know.)

gentillabdulla

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I'm a little confused.

Did a 13 year old kid, with no knowledge of the math behind quantum theory or General Relativity, pay to take out ads in some papers to state that he has working schematics to build a time machine??? Did he really claim that photons have infinite energy (as was being postulated before Max Plank), that he is in the process of building a perpetual motion machine & that he is working on grand unification theories...

...only to be royally schooled on this 7-page blog in about 3 pages...

Actually I quit working on a grand unification theory.

I wasn't schooled as I was explaining Nasseim Haramein's Unified field theory not my time travel thesis. What we were talking about was Haramein's field theory and that is why Nasseim is wrong and I pretty much agree with Professor Fink now about that.

Actually about the perpetual motion machine I thought of a way to tap into gravity with magnetism.

Just 3 rows of magnets all repelling each other on wheel. This wheel is then put upward and repelled by magnets that are arranged in the shape of the wheel.

This would allow the magnets to push the magnets near them but allow the force of gravity to help push the magnets downward along with electromagnetism.

Though it's not perpetual it still is a way to get energy from magnets and gravity.

I do know about some of the math behind the models of general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Nope didn't pay for any ads.

Well I didn't know that. Nice fun fact included.(I like fun facts.)

sponsoredwalk

gentillabdulla wrote: »

I wasn't schooled as I was explaining Nasseim Haramein's Unified field theory not my time travel thesis.

digme wrote: »

iReport — One 13 year old boy , named Gentill Abdulla, has said that he has a
time machine plan that is going to work.

:rolleyes:

I don't know why you're replying to a comment made 5 months ago, especially to change the story that is in writing not only on this page but on a cnn website & is on audio on a once-respected radio station

gentillabdulla wrote: »

Though it's not perpetual it still is a way to get energy from magnets and gravity.

:eek:

err.... I think it was said best on page 1;

Professor_Fink wrote: »

There really is no arguing with blanket assertions other than simply saying, show me the device.

And another thing, I thought you actually had math to back up your time machine plan, why have you now abandoned this idea since you appeared so confident yesterday?

gentillabdulla wrote: »

However, I am serious about my new solution and I have math that backs it up.

Nevermind technical jargon, just try and keep the story on this thread consistent & you'll convince someone you've got it all together...

gentillabdulla wrote: »

I do know about some of the math behind the models of general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Well perhaps you could show us how using diff geometry & functional analysis have created a partial perpetual motion machine and given you a new solution to your time machine, or have you given up since you told us you had solutions only yesterday? I'm very confused...

gentillabdulla

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I don't know why you're replying to a comment made 5 months ago, especially to change the story that is in writing not only on this page but on a cnn website & is on audio on a once-respected radio station




:eek:

err.... I think it was said best on page 1;



And another thing, I thought you actually had math to back up your time machine plan, why have you now abandoned this idea since you appeared so confident yesterday?

Nevermind technical jargon, just try and keep the story on this thread consistent & you'll convince someone you've got it all together...

Well perhaps you could show us how using diff geometry & functional analysis have created a partial perpetual motion machine and given you a new solution to your time machine, or have you given up since you told us you had solutions only yesterday?

I meant when me and Professor Fink were talking. That was Nasseim's theory.

I have kept everything consistent. The theory stated there is my OLD one. My new one is the one with the math.

I just replied to that one because I felt I gave an unacceptable response.

I believe you are misunderstanding what I said. I have math to back up the NEW one not the OLD one.

A partial perpetual motion machine, as you call it, is just using magnetism along with gravity to sustain a wheels movement. It just so happens that you can make a motor out of it.

It's just the use of the repulsion force of magnets along with the downward force of gravity to create transform energy.

I was, and still am, confident.

I haven't changed anything the old plan is the old plan just as simple as that.

I don't think you should blame the station as that was my first time on national radio. I was nervous. Just as simple as that.

ressem

These posts are really starting to sound like another steorn advertising gimmick.
"New improved orbo, now with 3 magnetic rings instead of 2. Please ignore the rechargable battery behind the curtain."

Anyways, as for the rest. Nitpicks from another non-scientist.
To create the wormhole, you want to create a (hypothetical) permanent magnetic monopole? Then surround it with a ring of extremely powerful magnets.
Sounds like the central magnet would act like act in a similar manner to the hydrogen/helium/boron in the tokomak containment fusion reactors. Either escape out at the point where the field is weakest or tear itself apart trying to orient itself into a lower energy state, turning to gas/plasma and the magnetic field dissipating. And then behaving like most other forms of matter.

The magnetic fields pointing towards this compressed matter as it gathers enough mass to form a black hole, I would guess would behave as behave as any other form of EM radiation. You might as well just be pointing lasers to compress the mass, and save the cost of the ringworld.

gentillabdulla

ressem wrote: »

Anyways, as for the rest. Nitpicks from another non-scientist.
To create the wormhole, you want to create a (hypothetical) permanent magnetic monopole? Then surround it with a ring of extremely powerful magnets.

It would be easier for this experiment if the central magnet was a monopole.But it isn't necessary.

It is just the magnetic fields forcing the central magnet to implode, or compress if you prefer, and just replaces gravity with magnetism.

Xios

Gentill, you remind me of the kid from Where The Wild Things are. Secret plans, old and new plans. Staying in sync with the internet as a whole, i'd honestly like to says "tits, or gtfo"

gentillabdulla

Xios wrote: »

Gentill, you remind me of the kid from Where The Wild Things are. Secret plans, old and new plans. Staying in sync with the internet as a whole, i'd honestly like to says "tits, or gtfo"

I have never seen where the wild things are so I don't really care.

As for the plans for time travel there have only been 2.

Old one which is stated in the article.

New one which isn't stated anywhere.

I understand what "gtfo" means but what about "tits"?

Improbable

gentillabdulla wrote: »

I understand what "gtfo" means but what about "tits"?

AWESOME

gentillabdulla

I saw this lecture on relativity as I was swooping through the internet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbmf0bB38h0

I do have a few problems with it.

I don't think the guy explains the tidal forces and equivalence principle very well.

I also thought he should have put a more accurate measurement of the gravitational constant.(He put 6.7 x 10^-11 in newtons)

(On a side note if you take a close look at the equation for finding the sum of the force of all other particles on particle i then you see he doesn't put a stopping point above the summation sign.)

I said this because I am asking is this what real college courses are like?

Xios

Improbable wrote: »

AWESOME

lulz :pac:

But apologies, get the thread back on topic

sponsoredwalk

gentillabdulla wrote: »

I also thought he should have put a more accurate measurement of the gravitational constant.(He put 6.7 x 10^-11 in newtons)

(On a side note if you take a close look at the equation for finding the sum of the force of all other particles on particle i then you see he doesn't put a stopping point above the summation sign.)

I said this because I am asking is this what real college courses are like?

Yes, college courses aren't about being pedantic to show off that you can calculate [latex] G \approx 6.67 \ \cdot \ 10^{-11} \ N \ (\frac{m}{kg})^2[/latex] to some arbitrary degree or about strictest rigor in the notation,
it's about the concepts & it's up to you to fill in any obvious gaps.
Soon enough you'll realise how insignificant calculating G to some arbitrary degree will become once you get used to
mathematics as symbol manipulation as opposed to number crunching.

I mean, you don't really think [latex]\sum_{x=1}[/latex] means you count forever do you? It's obvious the teacher is trying to give you the concepts.
You must not be used to summation notation as it's patently clear from the context that Susskind is describing a fixed "n" number of particles in the system.
I think he even says it like 2 seconds before when he's explaining the concept & besides, you're dealing with a body that obviously does have a fixed no. of particles.
Furthermore, he only explains this concept to show how futile it is to calculate in practice, it's the overall force that concentrates the center of mass in the center that is the critical idea.

gentillabdulla

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

You must not be used to summation notation as it's patently clear from the context that Susskind is describing a fixed "n" number of particles in the system.
I think he even says it like 2 seconds before when he's explaining the concept & besides, you're dealing with a body that obviously does have a fixed no. of particles.
Furthermore, he only explains this concept to show how futile it is to calculate in practice, it's the overall force that concentrates the center of mass in the center that is the critical idea.

Ok but I know that he was doing it for all particles except i. And yes he did explain that it was for the overall force of all particles and showed that the force of all the particles acting on i is equal to the acceleration of i. Which showed that it was force = m x a.


About the equivalence principle instead of saying what he said I think he should have said....

"Due to everything falling at the same rate, if you had and a group of tennis balls jumped out of a plane with the tennis balls in an intricate shape, then the tennis balls would all seem to stay in their same intricate shape relative to you.

Einstein says that a gravitational free fall, if you don't count friction of the air, is the same as being in space due to the equivalence principle. But only if the earth was flat.

This is because of something called tidal forces. You see tidal forces are due to the effect of gravity at different heights.

Lets say you are vertically falling from a building.

When you fall gravity at your head is different from gravity at your legs. So your shoulders come together and your legs become straight and if there is enough gravity you elongate.

This process is called spaghettification.

This can most easily seen in a black hole. Due to the enormous gravity in a black hole the black hole actually rips you and your atoms apart violently.

Which is why the equivalence principle is not always equivalent. But again if it were a flat earth with uniform gravity then the equivalence principle would always be right."

DjBryn

gentillabdulla wrote: »

This process is called spaghettification.

This can most easily seen in a black hole. Due to the enormous gravity in a black hole the black hole actually rips you and your atoms apart violently.

Which is why the equivalence principle is not always equivalent. But again if it were a flat earth with uniform gravity then the equivalence principle would always be right."

genetila ever think of going into the movies like the si-fi ones....?

gentillabdulla

DjBryn wrote: »

gentill ever think of going into the movies like the sci-fi ones....?

I guess I could for fun.

sponsoredwalk

DjBryn wrote: »

genetila ever think of going into the movies like the si-fi ones....?

"The word spaghettification comes from an example given by Stephen Hawking in his book A Brief History of Time,

where he describes the flight of a fictional astronaut who, passing within a black hole's event horizon, is "stretched like spaghetti"
by the gravitational gradient (difference in strength) from head to toe."

- Spaghettification

gentillabdulla

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

"The word spaghettification comes from an example given by Stephen Hawking in his book A Brief History of Time,

where he describes the flight of a fictional astronaut who, passing within a black hole's event horizon, is "stretched like spaghetti"
by the gravitational gradient (difference in strength) from head to toe."

- Spaghettification

I always liked that word.

Has anyone here seen Hawking's new show?

sponsoredwalk

gentillabdulla wrote: »

I always liked that word.

Has anyone here seen Hawking's new show?

No, tbh I'm tired of watching those shows - they get repetitive

If you want something extremely interesting to watch that is about physics I suggest you watch The Mechanical Universe.

It's 52 half-hour shows on undergraduate physics that really make you appreciate physics, not in a dumbed down way either
This is truly a life-changing set of videos.

If you don't know calculus I'm sure you'll be able to follow a good deal of the show anyway as long as you know algebra & study the 2nd to 8th shows very carefully.

It's free online in the link on wikipedia & also on google video.

Here is the first episode that sets up the rest of the course.

Oh, and there's a book you can get on amazon too, but I did the thing fine without the book.

You wont learn how to solve physics problems using this course but you'll learn the idea's to make studying the real books a heck of a lot easier!

EDIT: If you do go ahead with the course & have questions throughout it come here to ask questions, just go to this thread to post them

lonsdale

rccaulfield wrote: »

Ni i don't. It was a joke get off your high horse like!

I know, whats with all these "neigh" sayers....