ADVANCE Posted May 17, 2014 Author Posted May 17, 2014 (edited) That's like asking if they sent a unicorn to the moon, they would duplicate into that many yes...indeed...? ? ? ya...right? ya..... ? They won't because they can't. Do you accept that? It isn't a matter or money or technology. It's not a matter of "we don't know how". It isn't possible. We can prove it isn't possible. The nanobot would duplicate, what do you think makes the rest after, in 2016 hopefully? huh? the first one! makes the rest....and like I said IF my thing works in levitating an atom, or a mass of them, then same thing for that too, it would duplicate, (which would be too extremely better than nanobots) if it works......... I am, questioning why you just said a capable nanobot coudln't multiply Edited May 17, 2014 by ADVANCE -1
Fuzzwood Posted May 17, 2014 Posted May 17, 2014 What nanobot? If the nanobot can't be made then it can't be made. And for the rest, lots of Ifs in your story.
ADVANCE Posted May 17, 2014 Author Posted May 17, 2014 (edited) You know, if we make the supposed nanobot that can duplicate or anything that can like my thing IF it works then it will duplicate, basically saying if it can move the atoms rightfully like meant and can multiply then it can multiply... Edited May 17, 2014 by ADVANCE
John Cuthber Posted May 17, 2014 Posted May 17, 2014 "You know, if we make the supposed nanobot" We can't. Why do you keep saying "if we do so and so..." when you have been repeatedly told that it's impossible. 1
ADVANCE Posted May 17, 2014 Author Posted May 17, 2014 (edited) "You know, if we make the supposed nanobot" We can't. Why do you keep saying "if we do so and so..." when you have been repeatedly told that it's impossible. Ther're trying right now to make one, and if made it would then duplicate....... Are you one of those people that does not want to live forever? Edited May 17, 2014 by ADVANCE
Klaynos Posted May 17, 2014 Posted May 17, 2014 Ther're trying right now to make one, and if made it would then duplicate....... Are you one of those people that does not want to live forever? Given I know people who work in this field and have not heard of anything close to what you are suggesting, can you cite your source?
Sensei Posted May 17, 2014 Posted May 17, 2014 The nanobot would duplicate, what do you think makes the rest after, in 2016 hopefully? huh? the first one! makes the rest....and like I said IF my thing works in levitating an atom, or a mass of them, then same thing for that too, it would duplicate, (which would be too extremely better than nanobots) if it works......... I am, questioning why you just said a capable nanobot coudln't multiply If nanobots would self replicate it sounds like the end of human kind.. Viruses don't self replicate. They introduce their DNA to living cell, and cell is turned to be virus factory. To reproduce there is needed source of energy and matter that will be used to building thing. Nanorobots currently don't exist. You cannot control such small device with radiowaves.
ADVANCE Posted May 17, 2014 Author Posted May 17, 2014 (edited) Oh... But of course if one day a capable nanobot wAs made, or more of a cell like nanobot, then, it would indeed duplicate...or my thing IF it works was made and works, it would obviously duplicate too, unless the idea is actaully magic like I just said, IF, lol... can someone up a couple random or rightful or inspiring posts so I can edit again, because I really have to edit my other thread from the top to add something... Edited May 17, 2014 by ADVANCE
Fuzzwood Posted May 17, 2014 Posted May 17, 2014 Ther're trying right now to make one, and if made it would then duplicate....... Are you one of those people that does not want to live forever? Who is 'they'? Citation needed.
ADVANCE Posted May 17, 2014 Author Posted May 17, 2014 Not gonna answer to you or anyone that has that disgust of talk anymore, or who would negative down so many times.
Klaynos Posted May 17, 2014 Posted May 17, 2014 Reputation has no impact on being able to edit posts. The ability to edit times out. I'd strongly suggest not refuse to answer until you get positive rep, people are likely to down rep that kind of thing. Also you cannot see who has repped you...
ADVANCE Posted May 17, 2014 Author Posted May 17, 2014 Reputation has no impact on being able to edit posts. The ability to edit times out. I'd strongly suggest not refuse to answer until you get positive rep, people are likely to down rep that kind of thing. Also you cannot see who has repped you... I'm trying to save the world and you are all acting like kids. Huh...It might be a couple of them, fuzzwood seem to support gay so that explain why he's prone to disrupt and hurt, Go Away! I noticed a few constantly doing negativing, and idoling on the page, go away u, evil consciousness! They're sinister things and bisexual and they must be evil or uneducated to not stay away and not hurt...get, out, of here! -3
Phi for All Posted May 17, 2014 Posted May 17, 2014 I'm trying to save the world and you are all acting like kids. Huh...It might be a couple of them, fuzzwood seem to support gay so that explain why he's prone to disrupt and hurt, Go Away! I noticed a few constantly doing negativing, and idoling on the page, go away u, evil consciousness! They're sinister things and bisexual and they must be evil or uneducated to not stay away and not hurt...get, out, of here! ! Moderator Note If you make another sockpuppet account to modify your reputation, you will be banned. One account per user is the rule you agreed to when you joined.
Ophiolite Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 I'm trying to save the world and you are all acting like kids. Trying to save the world is a noble objective. Ten out of ten for wishing to do so. However, you should keep these points in mind. 1. Your idea will not work. 2. Your idea is not really a proper idea, but just a very loose suggestion that is as useful as a mountain goat's flatulence. 3. You need to accept these points before you can move forward. 4. Making negative remarks about the sexual orientation of other members is not only irrelevant, against the rules of the forum and rude: it is a really dumb thing to do as it will turn people against you and distract from your central objective. 5. This could be an excellent time to start the difficult process of growing up. Members will be supportive if you attempt to do so, but your behaviour on the forum so far has been immature and foolish. Please change.
pzkpfw Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 (edited) 4. Making negative remarks about the sexual orientation of other members is not only irrelevant, against the rules of the forum and rude: it is a really dumb thing to do as it will turn people against you and distract from your central objective. ... and from someone with this in their sig? Everyone is conscious and equal, besides our different bodies, memory and decisions, we are all identical consciousnesses. Edited May 18, 2014 by pzkpfw 1
John Cuthber Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 Ther're trying right now to make one, and if made it would then duplicate....... Are you one of those people that does not want to live forever? How could it possibly matter if I wish to live forever? My wish wouldn't change the laws of physics- such as the uncertainty principle or the finite size requirements of radio antennae. and since it won't matter to the laws of physics, it won't affect the fact that your ideas are impossible. On the other hand saying things like "Are you one of those people that does not want to live forever?" is getting dangerously close to a personal attack. You can get kicked off the site for that, and your other witterings in this thread about sexuallity are likely to do that too.
Fuzzwood Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 Not gonna answer to you or anyone that has that disgust of talk anymore, or who would negative down so many times. That does not answer my question. Please refrain from making ad hominem comments. This is a science forum, not a pigsty.
ADVANCE Posted May 18, 2014 Author Posted May 18, 2014 Because you's are making attacks on me! And acting like kids, most of you's skip questions and even after asking 6 times in a row and then don't even say it is there and you's are not mature, and swearing ect. -3
Fuzzwood Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 (edited) Kindly provide quotes where 'we' were swearing. Also, I do not respond well to people who look down upon others with differing sexual views. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but I am just as entitled to respond to your opinion and to question the validity of your forum signature for that matter. Furthermore, we are making attacks on your ideas, not on you, which is something else you should consider and anticipate in advance when posting on a science forum. Anyway, we are diverting away from the purpose of this topic. You still haven't provided any material or otherwise on your statement that 'they' are manufacturing any kind of nanobot. Edited May 18, 2014 by Fuzzwood
physica Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 (edited) ADVANCE as an outsider looking in on this thread I think they have been very patient with you. You have showed no aptitude in science and your posts resemble a 5 minute google search as prep and they have again and again explained why certain concepts wouldn't work. You will not find people this patient in university academia and definitely not in industry. I understand that you're only 18 and it is a little hard to have your scientific aptitude tested against people who have been studying and working for years in science but do not disregard this experience. You will fall off your bike when you learn how to ride it. Edited May 18, 2014 by physica
ADVANCE Posted May 18, 2014 Author Posted May 18, 2014 How evil, fuzzwood trying to say above were getting off topic as the moderater said somewhere to make one do something, see, evilll. No some of my questions never get answered, just look at my optical tweezers thread and where left off, could become gods if those work and just left unanswered...
John Cuthber Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 How evil, fuzzwood trying to say above were getting off topic as the moderater said somewhere to make one do something, see, evilll. No some of my questions never get answered, just look at my optical tweezers thread and where left off, could become gods if those work and just left unanswered... But, as was pointed out a lot, they won't work. Do you still not understand that?
hypervalent_iodine Posted May 19, 2014 Posted May 19, 2014 ! Moderator Note ADVANCE, Please try to engage in your thread instead of throwing a tantrum. The people posting in here have been incredibly patient in trying to explain to you in scientific terms why what you are suggesting won't work. Unfortunately, you do not seem willing to relate your ideas to science but instead to your imagination and to fiction. This won't work here. If you wish to keep this thread open, please make an attempt to discuss and learn from their points instead of waving them off or ignoring them. Finally, please stop making new threads about this. You have a number of threads that are currently open discussing one aspect or another, but they all come down to the same pet theory. This is against the rules and I will be going through and closing any other threads I believe to be replicates of this one.
ADVANCE Posted May 19, 2014 Author Posted May 19, 2014 You know the my 2 questions still left though are: If a photon as big or smaller then the atom hit it from one side in total vacuum would the atom move with momentum in one direction, it shouldn't jiggle, ? Note that with no actual test I'd have, to test this myself and see if works, but this should go widespread to the lab right now to test for everyone, because everyone would want to live forever and in a heaven in 6 months this would progress and such to...from just the cababilities of this being able to move the atom or 10,000 atom mass with levitation rather then atoms that is why we can do the opening post plan or similar and thats why can get to great achievements~ Second question is same as above but what about trying instead as not one atom but maybe a bigger mass like 10,000?
Klaynos Posted May 19, 2014 Posted May 19, 2014 Your questions are not terribly easy to understand. John answered the first one. Y the second one is more difficult given your lack of details, but answered in the links you were provided by I think Swansont about optical tweezers and polystyrene beads.
Recommended Posts