 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Australian Car Forums / General Car Topics (Australian group) / March 2007I am speachless over this one.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21377185-2862,00.html It's actually speechless. This is usually a word a 10 year old can spell without problems. > http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21377185-2862,00.html > It's actually speechless. This is usually a word a 10 year old can spell > without problems. > >>http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21377185-2862,00.html Bwahahahahah at least the man knows something about cars unlike you... You f.cking twit. > http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21377185-2862,00.html That's fairly special. I only feel that way when I wake up to early in the morning though. He seems to be struggling with it on the wheelbarrow. He needs to invent an antigravity device to lighten his load! > http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21377185-2862,00.html  Signature. . . . . . READ CAREFULLY. By reading this article, you agree solely, and/or on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of yourself and/or your employer. > http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21377185-2862,00.html The poor bugger's obviously mentally ill, but being a Victorian, he can't access the care he needs. The reporter should be ashamed too, (obviously) using him for laughs is pretty low IMHO. Signaturea9x5l >> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21377185-2862,00.html > > The poor bugger's obviously mentally ill, but being a Victorian, he can't > access the care he needs. The reporter should be ashamed too, (obviously) > using him for laughs is pretty low IMHO. you need to "lighten up" a bit :) boom-boom >http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21377185-2862,00.html The poor guy has obviously been left a bit up in the air by everyone..... >> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21377185-2862,00.html > > The poor guy has obviously been left a bit up in the air by everyone..... A lot of people are like this guy. They think they've got something others haven't. I bet this guy has. A malfunctioning anti gravity machine > http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21377185-2862,00.html He was interviewed on talkback radio very recently and made very litlle sense. > http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21377185-2862,00.html Damn good way to retire, convince the missus you are a froot loop, sit in the shed all day watching telly pretending to work on an antigravity machine :) >>http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21377185-2862,00.html > > Damn good way to retire, convince the missus you are a froot loop, sit in > the shed all day watching telly pretending to work on an antigravity machine > :) I already am a froot loop, and my mind is an antigravity machine, so I'm good. > http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21377185-2862,00.html If this guy really had invented an antigravity machine he wouldn't be ignored. The internet is full of ideas like this that are simply impossible because they break the laws of physics. An anti-gravity machine is probably possible but it would require a constant stream of energy, so any energy harnessed from it would just be gained from the energy supplied to it. Most likely it wouldn't be 100% efficient so there would be some loss of energy. So instead of being a machine that made energy it would be a machine that used energy. Energy cannot be created, it has to come from somewhere. Petrol has energy that can be release by burning it, uranium has energy that can be released by breaking it's bonds, a mass at the top of a mountain (eg water) has energy that can be released by reducing it's height. A machine cannot simply make energy. The only patent I can find by this guy is "Sound Emitting Device for Beverage Containers" which seems more along his line of invention, although the site I used to search wasn't too good: http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/searching/patsearch/search_section.jsp?ke yNo=2003100072§ionCode=DTL&type=I Michael >> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21377185-2862,00.html > > If this guy really had invented an antigravity machine he wouldn't be > ignored. you think ? > >>http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21377185-2862,00.html > > > If this guy really had invented an antigravity machine he wouldn't be > > ignored. > > you think ? He'd be wearing concrete footware at a deep puddle of water. There would be someone else taking the credit for the invention, lots of meetings, a company being created, then a product being marketed that no one really knows how to use or even actually sees. It was not reliable anyway - all good though because the investors poured money into it, and the ATO, who then got the shites when they realized..... >>> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21377185-2862,00.html >> >> If this guy really had invented an antigravity machine he wouldn't be >> ignored. > you think ? Yes. I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not but going by your initial response you seem to believe him. >>>> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21377185-2862,00.html >>> If this guy really had invented an antigravity machine he wouldn't be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yes. I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not but going by your initial > response you seem to believe him. You think ? do ya hear the sound ? >>>>> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21377185-2862,00.html >>>> If this guy really had invented an antigravity machine he wouldn't be [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > do ya hear the sound ? Whoosh? >> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21377185-2862,00.html > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > loss of energy. So instead of being a machine that made energy it would be > a machine that used energy. You can't blame a wacky senile old fart for having a go anyway ............................. Hey he made the internet! If he knows what it is......... :) > Energy cannot be created, it has to come from somewhere. Petrol has energy > that can be release by burning it, uranium has energy that can be released [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Michael > If this guy really had invented an antigravity machine he wouldn't be > ignored. The internet is full of ideas like this that are simply impossible > because they break the laws of physics. An anti-gravity machine is probably > possible but it would require a constant stream of energy, Can you tell me where all the energy comes from that "powers" gravity in the first place? Why a rock continues to endlessly exert pressure on the ground beneath it forever? While we're on the subject of breaking the laws of physics, why is it that gravity is allowed to break the speed of light? Sounds to me like gravity is very naughty indeed :-) >> If this guy really had invented an antigravity machine he >> wouldn't be ignored. The internet is full of ideas like this that >> are simply impossible because they break the laws of physics. An >> anti-gravity machine is probably possible but it would require a >> constant stream of energy, >Can you tell me where all the energy comes from that "powers" gravity >in the first place? Why a rock continues to endlessly exert pressure >on the ground beneath it forever? Because it's not moving. No work is done if there is no movement due to the force. i.e. no energy is required. >While we're on the subject of breaking the laws of physics, why is it >that gravity is allowed to break the speed of light? Sounds to me like >gravity is very naughty indeed :-) What's the nature of gravity? Does it have to _travel_? Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us, X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living." / \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD. On Mar 17, 1:26 pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote: > Because it's not moving. No work is done if there is no movement due > to the force. i.e. no energy is required. Yeah that's the answer that physics text books will say. But, and don't take this the wrong way, a "common sense" look at it tells you there is something happening there. I mean, if you were trying to push a barrel up a hill, but your maximum strength was only enough to hold it in position, I think you'd agree that you were "working" pretty hard :-) > What's the nature of gravity? Does it have to _travel_? I guess that's the real question. It's just that this has been in the back of my mind since my highschool days. e.g. if the sun were belted out of the galaxy by a cosmic cricket bat, would the Earth immediately stop orbiting that position? You'd think so. Yet it would take the light however long to stop shining on us (4 days is it? I forget). Ergo gravity is faster than light. > Yeah that's the answer that physics text books will say. But, and > don't take this the wrong way, a "common sense" look at it tells you > there is something happening there. I mean, if you were trying to push > a barrel up a hill, but your maximum strength was only enough to hold > it in position, I think you'd agree that you were "working" pretty > hard :-) That's just a fault/feature of the human body. You could consider it like a car slipping the clutch to hold the barrel still on a hill, it is using energy but all of that energy is lost in heat. If you put the handbrake on then it would stop using energy. If you want to mathematical explanation, energy is force x distance, so the force can be very large but if the distance is zero then the energy is zero. > I guess that's the real question. It's just that this has been in the > back of my mind since my highschool days. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > so. Yet it would take the light however long to stop shining on us (4 > days is it? I forget). Ergo gravity is faster than light. That's a very interesting question, one worthy of the backpage of newscientist mag. They have lots of reader questions like this and this would have to be one of the more interesting ones. I have no idea how gravity works so can't even start to answer it. > That's just a fault/feature of the human body. You could consider it like a > car slipping the clutch to hold the barrel still on a hill, it is using > energy but all of that energy is lost in heat. Yes but it still takes energy to do it. > If you put the handbrake on then it would stop using energy. Well that changes things a bit. But it's still the same as a rock exerting pressure on the ground. Physics can explain away my question by defining what energy is and what work is etc, but me not ever having been a student of physics (not officially anyway) don't take the rules for granted. To me it seems like physics has a little hole in it here. > If you want to mathematical explanation, > energy is force x distance, so the force can be very large but if the > distance is zero then the energy is zero. To me (uneducated Joe Average) that doesn't sound like an adequate description of energy considering what my "every day" experiences with energy are. To try to illustrate my point, imagine the colours red green and blue. You know these colours are around because you see them all the time. But then imagine an accepted school of thought that says there are only two colours; red and green. You show someone blue and they say, "No there's nothing there because there's no red or green." You're left thinking, "Yeah but... look..." I feel like I'm the one left thinking, "Yeah but... look at the rock pressing hard on the ground..." > > e.g. if the sun were belted out of the galaxy by a cosmic cricket bat, > > would the Earth immediately stop orbiting that position? You'd think [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > would have to be one of the more interesting ones. I have no idea how > gravity works so can't even start to answer it. As far as I can see, current physics doesn't know how gravity works either. It's just there, taken for granted, and special. Anyway, I'm probably babbling now. Like I said I've just wondered about this since I was a kid. Seems odd to me. >> Because it's not moving. No work is done if there is no movement due >> to the force. i.e. no energy is required. >Yeah that's the answer that physics text books will say. But, and >don't take this the wrong way, a "common sense" look at it tells you >there is something happening there. I mean, if you were trying to push >a barrel up a hill, but your maximum strength was only enough to hold >it in position, I think you'd agree that you were "working" pretty >hard :-) You're an inefficient human. (Or close approximation.) A stick or a rock could easily make your whingeing arse redundant. :-) >> What's the nature of gravity? Does it have to _travel_? >I guess that's the real question. It's just that this has been in the >back of my mind since my highschool days. >e.g. if the sun were belted out of the galaxy by a cosmic cricket bat, >would the Earth immediately stop orbiting that position? You'd think >so. It has to by all the known gravitational laws. There is still inertia in the system so "orbit" would appear to continue for a short while. Mind you, whatever knocked the sun out of position would be of much more concern because it would probably "adopt" us. >Yet it would take the light however long to stop shining on us (4 >days is it? I forget). Ergo gravity is faster than light. It might take politician 4 days to realize but sentient beings would observe the difference in about 500 seconds. Time is the distance divided by the velocity... about 149,000,000 km at 300,000 km/sec So if you're starting to feel a bit dizzy, but the world appears otherwise normal, it could be that galactic cueball snookering Sol into a black hole. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us, X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living." / \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD. On Mar 17, 5:25 pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote: > You're an inefficient human. (Or close approximation.) > > A stick or a rock could easily make your whingeing arse redundant. > :-) Damn that new fangled stick and rock technology :-) > >> What's the nature of gravity? Does it have to _travel_? > >I guess that's the real question. It's just that this has been in the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > short while. Mind you, whatever knocked the sun out of position > would be of much more concern because it would probably "adopt" us. > >Yet it would take the light however long to stop shining on us (4 > >days is it? I forget). Ergo gravity is faster than light. > > It might take politician 4 days to realize but sentient beings would > observe the difference in about 500 seconds. Time is the distance > divided by the velocity... about 149,000,000 km at 300,000 km/sec Didn't realise the sun was so close. I might put on a hat then. > So if you're starting to feel a bit dizzy, but the world appears > otherwise normal, it could be that galactic cueball snookering Sol > into a black hole. Reminds me of the "White Hole" Red Dwarf episode. > On Mar 17, 5:25 pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Damn that new fangled stick and rock technology :-) Now who said "Give me a lever and a fulcrum and I will move the world" ? >>>> What's the nature of gravity? Does it have to _travel_? >>> I guess that's the real question. It's just that this has been in the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Reminds me of the "White Hole" Red Dwarf episode. > > On Mar 17, 5:25 pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Now who said "Give me a lever and a fulcrum and I will move the world" ? ' Archimedes IIRC. Wasn't it "and a firm place to stand"? Fran |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.