/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2852956
You could't make any kind of scientific discovery (of the magnitude you mention), and not already be part of the scientific community.

"Average joe's" are just not capable of that kinda shit.

>>2852995
Fuck you and everything you just said. We both well know there are plenty of average Joe's in the history of scientific progress. Get off the elitist high horse, man.

I'd get in touch with one of my old university lecturers.

Or I'd get in touch with the local newspaper, since they're always desperate for stories, and bootstrap my way up the media foodchain.

>Your invention is useful if used right, but if used wrong will blow up the universe
I'd go straight to the military, making threats if I have to get their attention, and make sure they know about this device of unimaginable destructive power that an average Joe can build in his backyard, in order to prevent anyone ever building one again.

Tell absolutely any scientist about it.

>without your invention being dismissed as a hoax before it's even looked into?
They don't do that in science

Just show it working. Should be easy enough.

>>2852995
What about aliens? If they give it to you or something similar?

Basically, you make some sort of prediction and then later show how you got it once they've confirmed it.

If it's something like a discovery, you write up your results and submit it to a peer reviewed journal. You may have to settle for a bottom-tier journal, but at least it will still get published.

Also, apply for a patent if it's applicable.

>>2853001
>average Joe's in the history of scientific progress

Nope. Please name 1!

In anycase, it would be possible with very basic shit, but at the level of tech/science we have now, it is impossible.

The average joe just doesn't will not have the"resources" or "intellect" to "invent" anything new (scientifically).

I'd get a boombox, take it down to the CBD, put on some suitably epic music, and demonstrate it.

>>2853025

Faraday.

Since I'm already at University, go knock on the door of an acedemic in the relevant department (eg Free energy = Physicist etc). See if he'll help me work on it/give me advice/work on publishing it together/refer me to someone who can help.

Before someone says "He'll steal the idea for himself", obviously don't tell him the details until he's agreed or told you what he would do, and take all the precautions like sealed envelopes and all that shit.

>>2853025
Leeuwenhoek.

Can you just blow up the world already? Is that too much to ask?

Get your idea patented and then contact an academic journal

>>2853035
>Faraday was the first Fullerian Professor of Chemistry at the Royal Institution of Great Britain, a position to which he was appointed for life. His sponsor and mentor was John 'Mad Jack' Fuller, who created the position at the Royal Institution.

nope

Why even bother with scientific community.
Patent that shit and sell it to oil companies.
Atleast you won't be killed that way.

Besides getting something like that is easy as shit.
Just show it working.
Power a city with your hands or something, what ever your invention was

>>2853055
>Although Faraday received little formal education and knew little of higher mathematics, such as calculus, he was one of the most influential scientists in history.

Yup

>>2853035
Faraday worked in the lab dumbshit. He was a lab hand! Giving him access to resources and information/knowledge.

Faraday wan't an "average joe". If you work in a labatory, YOU ARENT AN AVERAGE FUCKING JOE! In fact, working in a labatory, does make you part of the "scientific community" by default!

Faraday made all his as part of the scientific community! DURRRRRRRRR!

>>2853025

The brother wright and their airplane.

There may not have been any big independent inventions lately, but who is to say that there are none left?

>>2853062
>At the age of twenty, in 1812, at the end of his apprenticeship, Faraday attended lectures by the eminent English chemist Humphry Davy of the Royal Institution and Royal Society, and John Tatum, founder of the City Philosophical Society. Many tickets for these lectures were given to Faraday by William Dance (one of the founders of the Royal Philharmonic Society)

nope.
stop pretending he was an average joe. the guy devoted half of his life studying chemistry before he accomplished anything, and that was 200 years ago. science marched on.

>>2853062
Confuses "lack of formal education" with being an "average joe/not part of the scientific community".

There are plenty of people that lacked formal education, yet still managed to integrate themselves into the scientific community, and then make scientific discoveries.

I keep my mouth shut so fda goons don't kill my family.

>>2853069
The wright brothers were not scientists
They were inventors. It is possible to "invent" shit without being a scientist. Inventors are not the same thing as scientists.

However, the shit you talk about:
Free energy! Time travel! A cure for aging!
Are scientifc discoveries in nature. A regular "inventor" cannot achieve such.

>dismissed as a hoax before it's even looked into
You've got it all wrong, all publicity is good publicity. I'd rather have my name associated with the invention when they finally realise it works than be an unknown and get the fuck plagiarised out of me by the many sociopaths and general assholes that inhabit this world.

I would phone every newspaper and news channel, contact every scientist, put up youtube, facebook and myspace accounts claiming I've just invented it, put my face and name everywhere, generally stir up a shitstorm.

Me. Me! ME!!!

>>2853144

What is the difference between inventing a plane that uses lift to get of the ground, and inventing a portal that uses wormholes to pull you back in time?
(besides the fact that wormholes aren't as easy to handle or find as wood)

>>2852956
Straight to the patent office.

Then, I demonstrate it. Easy as fuck to demonstrate ANY invention that works outside of our current understanding of science. Levitiation? LEVITATE. Time travel? TRAVEL THROUGH TIME. Cure aging? DON'T AGE. "Free" energy? Haul it straight to the nearest university and to some EE professor or something. If you can make more that one, let him take it apart.

>>2853172
one of them doesn't require advanced understanding of physic, can you guess which?

>>2853172
One is based on newtonian physics and the other is extremely limited and controversial even given the extraordinary conditions you'd need to (theoretically) encounter one?

>>2852956
>How do you present your invention to the world without your invention being dismissed as a hoax before it's even looked into?

Well first you patent it. Then you think of a test that can be reproduced that proves it's effectiveness. Then you go around trying to sell the patent.

>Extra Challenge
Well here is where you just try to run from the government, because odds are if you developed something that can blow up the universe, the government will come in and take it, classify the hell out of it, and make you sign something saying you can never talk about your invention or be sent to some secret prison and never be heard from again.

CORRECT ANSWER AS FOLLOWS

the government pay you 50 million for every right to your work. your invention is never heard of again.

the government kill you.

either way, your invention is added to the pile of inventions that would put oil out of pocket and the sytem of cyclical consumption breathes in, confident in its future.

>>2853189

True, but the average joe back in the day clearly knew enough about newtonian physics to get a plane flying.
Thanks to the dawn of the internet, there is a lot more information publicly available. I have a pretty good clue how a atomic bomb works for example, if I had the materials, then I could probably build one with enough time and money (remember those guys that made homebuild nuclear reactors). That's not nearly at the same level as wormholes of course, but there might just be something out there that is buildable on public knowledge, I'm not saying there is, but there's a good chance.

>>2853172
1) The knowledge required:
Basic Aerodynamics is shit compared to General Relitivity, the standard model, Quantum field theory, etc (the fields of science needed to make a wormhole).

2) Resources: (which is so evident, that you mentioned it yourself).
You will need a shit-ton of resources to make a wormhole. It isn't just something you can make in your backward in spare-time (like the wright brothers plane or any other "non-scientifc invention"). The average joe (even a pretty wealthy average joe) will not be able to afford to costs associated with testing and experimentation.

When wormholes/time travel does get "made" it will be by some large scientific colaboration, like CERN. Only those type or orginizations have the expertise and resources to produce such a breakthrough.

You can't build a particle accelerator in your back-yard....LMAO.

>>2853163

editor of newspaper hears of story about free energy

>isnt a celebrity
>wont inflate the already massively inflated threat of terrorism for political leverage
>wont allow people to think they have influence in the running of their country by slating political figures when they actually have no power outside of a very pointless vote every 4 years.
>you are a crackpot, and your invention will now feature for 3 minutes in a discovery channel documentary

>>2853216

Ok, let me rephrase that. What if you knew exactly how to build it, but don't have the resources.
What would you do with your theory?

>>2853214
You are fucking retarded. Why do you confuse "inventing" somthing, with "reproducing" something. It becomes almost trivial to "reproduce something" given enough time and money.

There is huge difference in, "reporducing a nuclear bomb" and "making the first nuclear bomb". The "firsts" require a huge amount or actual knowledge, expertise, and funding (due to all the trial and error and unknowns). The "reproductions" just require you knowing how to follow instructions.

>>2853214
>but there might just be something out there that is buildable on public knowledge, I'm not saying there is, but there's a good chance.

>>2853225
>I am considered a crackpot, and my invention will now feature for 3 minutes in a discovery channel documentary
>eventually I troll real scientists hard enough for them to try to disprove me once and for all
>to their shock it actually works
>my name is everywhere, they can't claim the credit for themselves
>I get all the bitches and paper

I would apply for patent's for each invention first and wait until they were fully under my name. Then approach the nearest University with the best Science department.

>>2853243

Sigh.. Of course there is that difference, but I can't really give examples of things that aren't here yet, now can I? "Invention zsertcfvg is buildable on public knowledge, and zsertcfvg is really good!" Doesn't convey the message as well as atomic bomb.

Reinventing something may not be as hard as inventing something, but you can't really get much closer.

>>2853216

Yea you can actually it's called a spark Chamber and we built one in eng. class.. :p

To all those saying you'd need the expertise in the first place:

It's a fucking hypothetical situation, deal with it.

Okay, the reason these inventions can't happen is because the scientific community is so rigorous and elite, and a for a very good reason (see: 4chan, deviantart, livejournal). In order to achieve any of those things, you would need to have access to THOUSANDS of works and constantly receive feedback. No one can make an invention that requires advanced knowledge alone, because it's just so damn complicated, the probability of that ever happening in today's state is nearly 0.

However, people make software all the time, and it's even possible to build a supercomputer at home. That's because all of the science in these tools are already discovered. Say that sometime in the future, somehow scientific inventions are as freely made as software; they aren't really 'invented' because the theory that goes into them is already laid out, unlike in the way way past when science was extremely unorganized and inventors were just schmucks trying to strike gold. Currently, there are people making microorganisms at home, so this isn't so far off. Then.... even then you'll still have to get it passed through the scientific community. It's just fucking stupid to not do so; something needs to be studied for a long ass time before it's shipped into business, and this needs rigor, or else it needs up like a hobo on a street.

>>2853239

1) Research if your idea has already been though of, or tried before. This may require months of extensive work, as there is a huge scientifc community, with tons of ideas and theoies/papers out there already.

2) If (slim chance) you do have somthing new and groundbreaking. Write up your theory nice and proper

3) Go to your local bank, have your paper noterized. This will prove it is indeed your theory, if dispute ever arises.

4) Go to your local uni, meet with the smartest physics professor. School his ass!

5) Recieve honary doctorates for your awesomeness!

5) Funding and recongintion will fall into your lap!

6) You will get tons of job offers, you will head your own research team at some big fancy lab!

7) You start buldiing your machine, fully funded at the labatory of your choice, with the full backing of the scientific community, and a huge research team working under you.

I once discovered free energy. Was uprooting a stump, turned over a rock and there it was.

Unfortunately I didnt bottle it properly and the free energy evaporated.

>>2853262
>doesn't know the difference between a spark chamber (primiative particle detector) and a particle accelerator

>>2853285

A nominee for the sweater. Although honestly I should have honorary doctorates thrown at me already for my sophisticated knitting techniques.

>>2853285
This is actually kinda what happned to Einstien.
(accept he just flat out published his paper).

Einstien, although a trained physicsit, was actually not relativly known for anything. He was actually below average. He wasn't even able to get a physics job after he graduated. He had to leave acedemia and physics, cause no one wanted to hire the scrub.

Years later, he came up with his theories. Published them, and then the job offers and recogination came rolling it! He went back to acedemia, and got funding up the ass! He turned down making the Atom Bomb, he also turned down being the president of newly formed Israel.

True story!

>>2853025
Srinivasa Ramanujan more or less was self-taught and still did some amazing work.

Free energy would be an easy on in the united states. Most states require power companies to purchase extra energy put into the grid. Just build your device, and start making money. Eventually you will have enough to market and sell your device.

>>2853025
George Green.

>>2853367
>Srinivasa Ramanujan

Yes, but math is different then science. And an experimentalist is differnt from a theorist. You can teach yourself theory (or math), and go very very far in the world, as long as you really know your shit.

A Theorist/mathmatican (most of them) don't need acess to fancy labs or equipment, etc. Even the most advanced mathematics (most) is truely something that you can do from your backyard or home, and takes no more then your own willingness and intellect.

Inventing somthing in Math/theory isn't the same thing as "inventing somthing physical", like a wormhole, or free-energy device.

>>2853404
read
>>2853409

Ya'll need to learn the difference between an "experimentalist" and a "theorist".

A theorist isn't inventing anything physical, they are just inveting "ideas". This is not the type of "amazing disovery" OP was talking about.

>>2853409
>Yes, but math is different then science.
>math is different then science.
>math not science

>>2853420

I'm cool with accepting ideas if they are amazing enough. A cure for aging for example would start as an idea anyway. If you're sure it works, or are at least sure enough it has a chance, then it's almost as good as the physical thing for the purpose of the question.

It's a hypothetical situation anyway, the question is more about how you would get people to believe you enough for them to try it out for themselves, rather than the question if it's actually possible to obtain this knowledge.

>>2853423
Yes, math is not science.
DURRRRRRRR

>>2853463

>If you're sure it works, or are at least sure enough it has a chance, then it's almost as good as the physical thing for the purpose of the question.

WTF? That doesn't make any sense at all. There is a HUGE difference between somthing in 'theory" and actually "building it".

Theortically we are capable of making huge fucking space-ships and be travling the stars. We have all the materials, we have all the math and equations. WE HAVE THE THEORY! It's isn't the same thing as actually doing it though.

>>2852995

Hi, my name is albert einstien. I failed my highschool math classes and was an Average Joe. 90% of my scientific papers were based on pure intuition, and the vast majority of my publications don't even have anything to do with science.

Go to hell.

>>2853420
OP clearly stated
>something else that needs exclamation mark
and the word "to invent" does not apply only to experimental science or technology

You can go with the hurr durr bullshit that maths isn't science, but OP just required that you'd be presenting something to the scientific world, which qualifies.

So shut the fuck up and take your fail elsewhere.

>>2853506
Hi my name is believing stupid rumors, I do not research my claims and look like a faggot.

Albert Einstein was very talented all through-out his life.

>>2853505
>your invention works

OP clearly stated it was an "invention". A INVENTION IS SOMEHITNG PHYSICAL DUMBSHIT! IT ISNT JUST A THOERY!

>>2853505

>>2853505
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention

You have discovered something amazing!
Free energy! Time travel! A cure for aging! Something else which needs an exclamation mark!

>Implying the CIA won't immediately imprison me and confiscate my research lest it actually threaten the current paradigm

You wonder why we're still not exploring space and having fun on other planets? Because a dozen-or-so assholes in the secret government would rather play it safe and cover their asses instead of do the right thing.

If the government can't even admit the Iraq War was a gigantic mistake good luck getting Lockheed-Martin to show us pictures of their triangular spaceship.

>>2853505
OP stated a invention (physical), not an idea for an invention.

>>2853535
Counterexample: Ben franklin invented electricity.

checkmate

>>2853547
STOP WATCHING FAUX! IT IS MAKING YOU FUCKING STUPID!

>>2853552
Trollin?

Franklin physically obtained electricity. He didn't just have an idea/theory about it.

>>2853549
>>2853544
>>2853538
>>2853535

samefag

The sweater is still available.

i invented the machine that will blow up the universe ... who wants to fund its production ? its a good thing ... REALLY IT IS !

you don't have to be a professional scientist to publish a paper. you could do experiments in your own backyard if you wanted, and if your method and results are sound, your paper will be published and you might even get someone to finance your research.

>>2853535

so I can't invent fantasy stories in my head?

Keep it a secret, make my family rich for centuries.

>>2855003

you'd have to sell it somehow to make your family rich, so it defeats the 'keeping it a secret' part.

>>2855021

Nobel prizes give money too! Just be epic enough with your idea so that you can win multiple somehow.