All Activity

I have long been interested in the prospects for improving upon the physical and neurological aspects of human beings, through ever advancing biotechnology, gene editing (CRISPR/Cas), brain-computer interfaces and so on. Obviously, this is an enormous subject, encompassing many different fields of research, but after reading numerous related books and following the science news in these areas every day, I definitely believe that what I'm alluding to is not only possible, but inevitable. There are many good reasons for doing so, ranging from making us less prone to the effects of aging to making us increasingly immune to disease and infection, but also, particularly via the brain-computer interface, when it gets more advanced, allowing our intelligence to merge with that of AI, multiplying our intelligence by orders of magnitude. I am not interested in what happens all too often on social media, i.e. nasty people making vituperative remarks and calling each other names. I am hoping we can have an intelligent, thoughtful discussion about these ideas.

I don't know where you get the $5.00. They're giving you $7.50 for generating the power and keeping $2.50 to cover the cost of delivery and maintenance of the infrastructure. Doesn't sound like a particularly bad deal, if this is surplus power you're selling. If you sold eggs or basketware or jam to a wholesaler, your cut of the retail price would probably be less.

.

Halc ,thank you so much for your time and good points. You are correct airport moving walkway is inspiration. I tried to explain this : The pedestrian 1 moving up down on non moving road is system 1 . pedestrian 1 is moving relative to pedestrian 2( non moving observer - reference point) Speed v1=1m/s has only vertical component - horizontal component of speed is zero. system 2 Is movement of road relative to pedestrian 2. The road moves horizontally at speed v2=1 m/s I mentioned non moving pedestrian 1 - relative to road. Pedestrian 1 movement (together with road)observed by pedestrian 2 is 2 m horizontally. The same pedestrian 1 we can put in non moving position at any position between A,B . The observed horizontal distance would be 2 m That is movement of road - relative to pedestrian 2 Conclusion : There is two simultaneous movements in the same reference frame (pedestrian 2) vertical movement of pedestrian 1 and horizontal movement of road Again ,both observed by pedestrian 2 at the same time . For system 3 I used jet pack and nozzle to emphasize the importance of nozzle angle Alfa. When two speeds vertical and horizontal Acting at the same time they create observed trajectory to be seen by pedestrian 2 as a diagonal . Diagonal which is 1.42 m long. This diagonal angle rotation is equal to angle Alfa of nozzle 45 degrees . The tan angle alfa =dv/dh dv=d1 =vertical distance of 1m dh=d2=horizontal distance 1 m The road moving horizontally and the pedestrian moving vertically on the road(picture at the top of thread ) at the same time will create the same trajectory as a trajectory cretaed by nozzle on the jet pack moved CW (picture at the bottom of the thread ). When we now the length of trajectory (1.42m) this is only one half of total distance ,this half goes up at 45 degrees - the other half is 1.42 going down at 45 degrees . So total length is 2.84 m . This is length observed by pedestrian 2 - observing only pedestrian 1. Now the most important part speed vector v3 on the chevron trajectory of 2.84 m is v3=1 m/s. This v3 speed vector is created by vertical component v3 v=0.7 m(originates from vertical v1 - system 1) and horizontal component v3h=0.7 m(originates from v2 - system 2). The total length d3/v3=t3=1.42 Times 2 is total time t3=2.84s. And now the vertical component v3 v =0.7m is the observed vertical speed of pedestrian 1 (by pedestrian 2) It will take exactly d1 /v3v =t3v=1.42 sec for pedestrian 1 to travel distance d1 =1 m. This is slowing down of the clock. Here is explanation: If instead of speed v1=1 m/s as a fastest speed in universe we use c-speed of ligh=v1 And instead of pedestrian 1 we use light clock 1 with L=3x10e8 m(distance between mirrors). Instead of road let’s use train. Theoreticaly(it is impossible ) If train moves at speed v2=c The total time t3 will be t3=2.84s - the same as for pedestrian 1 . The slowest tick will be 0.7 s Not 0 - like we think - at speed of light (hypothetically) . in my humble opinion , time dilation does not happen . actually overlooked increase in observed trajectory length (chevron system 3) d3 Is the reason for observed time increase . The original tile dilation experiment used light clocks with L=1m Distance between mirrors L. Light travels that distance in one second 3x10e8 times. It is very hard to observe that chevron d3 trajectory length d 3 only increased to d3=1.00000001 m from original d1=1 m But it is calculated - as a time dilation . I would like to say again - what we call time dilation is mislabeled increase in observed chevron trajectory length.

Greetings. There is a scheme the electric utility companies credit / not pay! for solar generation in dwellings, at 75% of the electric power rate. That is; if my solar panels on the roof deliver/inject electric energy into the grid which is priced at -say $0.10 per KWh- If I inject/deliver into the utility electric grid 100KWh @ $0.10/each KWh = $10 What does it mean... The utility company gives me credit of $7.50 but received $2.50 from my neighbors... So the utility company cost of the $7.50 credited to me costs them $2.50 less, being actually $5.00 ? Am I seeing it wrong ?

You've hit on the underlying destruction of will and hogging of our time that is fundamental to the proto-psychology of these technologies. Manipulation for the sake of content engagement, which in turn gives them more data, which leads to more effective manipulation. People may be making whackadoodle conspiracy theories but the tech is pushing people toward it just to get them to look at the screen more. How do you combat that when disinformation seems to spread faster and further than truth and few can actually comprehend peer reviewed research to identify truth in it anyway?

More and more I see this effect (I think it's this effect), especially on the younger generations. They're online and some bot is trying to get them to click on something, not necessarily even to get them to believe something but simply targeting what they already believe for the sake of getting the click so they can be exposed to some product or whatever. So they have this opinion, thought, or what have you...and it gets reinforced...probably in most cases no conspiracy to do it other than to simply get the click (for some monetary gain /advertisement or whatever)...but when they live online it gives them a very different sense of the balance of reality that we might have had at the same age...even if they are otherwise better informed than we were given all the extra online information (true or otherwise). Distorted reality.

little point getting into quantum Hall effect if you can't get the basic relations correct. classical motion in a magnetic field being \[m\frac{dv}{dt}=-ev\times B\] set the magnetic field to the z plane the particle moves in the transverse plane so you get using time differentials \[m\ddot{x}=-eB\\dot{y}\] \[m\ddot{y}=eB\\dot{x}\] gives \[x(t)=X-Rsin(\omega_Bt+\theta)\] and \[y(t)=Y+Rcos(\omega_Bt+\theta)\] cyclotron frequency given by \[\omega_B=\frac{eB}{m}\] oh look there's that cross product term once again, first equation enough said If you like I can take this through the Drude model to get the explicit expression for conductivity. however lets just skip to the conductivity tensor. \[\sigma \begin{pmatrix}\sigma_{xx}&\omega_{xy}\\-\sigma_{xy}&\sigma_{xx}\end{pmatrix}\] \[sigma\frac{\sigma_{DC}}{1+\omega^2_B\tau^2}\begin{pmatrix}1&-\omega_B\tau\\-\omega_B\tau&1)\end{pmatrix}\] with \[\sigma_{DC}=\frac{ne^2\tau}{m}\] the off diagonal terms gives rise to the hall effect resistivity being the inverse of conductivity here is a peer review coverage. https://phas.ubc.ca/~berciu/TEACHING/PHYS502/PROJECTS/21-Thomas.pdf This should show that if you never looked at vectors and spinor relations you could never describe the Hall effect with any degree of accuracy..... that is the classical treatment I gave the link provides the quantum treatment. for reference Drude model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drude_model

He doesn't. They don't. I'm very partial to Sagan though, on account of the child in me, who got fascinated by science thanks to Sagan among others. If children today get to love science because of Tyson, he would prove to be a worthy disciple of his mentor. Do we need more? Neither one of them managed to shatter the earth in scientific terms. So I agree with @dimreepr: Does it matter? Do you have an opinion on it? I think you mean someone like Carl inspired someone like Neil. Don't you?

It's funny that you say this because I have also had the idea that the arrow of time is connected to spinors. If you disagree with the ontology, then in what way are you agreeing with special and general relativity? It seems to me that you think time dilation is a physical effect acting on clocks. This conflicts with the principle of relativity which says that the laws of physics are the same in all frames of reference. This means that an ideal clock ticks at the same intrinsic rate in all frames of reference, and therefore time dilation is the result of something other than a physical effect acting on the clock. You say you agree with the equations, but you seem to disagree with the principles upon which the equations are based. It's as if you think Einstein got lucky with a wrong theory that happens to make correct predictions.

Why do you think I mentioned this on page one had you looked at the cross product term you would have recognized what I stated is precisely what is described by the Lorentz force law. Other applicable laws being the magnetic law and Amperes law. The cross product term has consequences in regard to the magnetic field that makes it unique from the E field which involves the dot product. It is also why the magnetic moment becomes critical as it has different vector relations from the magnetic field. It's critical to understanding how magnets work.

measuring the speed of light (photon speed) is relatively easy and does not require experts at NIST. And hence it contradicts:

I'm not asking you to do the experiments. I'm asking what experiment could, at least in principle, be done to show that Chronovibration is real, and what would one expect to observe? You do not seem able to answer this. From your earlier posts you seem to say the frequency of this chronovibration is equal to c/Compton wavelength. As the Compton wavelength of a particle is h/mc, that would mean the chronovibration frequency is c²m/h, i.e. proportional to mass. Do I have that right? If so, is there some way to show that the chronovibration frequency of, say, the electron, is lower than that of the proton, by a factor of 1836? How could this frequency be detected and measured?

Yes let's as this is incorrect. The B field is non divergent and does not have a point of origin. The E field is divergent and has a point of origin the B field does not. I thought you claimed to understand the vectors and spinors of the cross product ? Of course your likely going to state " Not in my model" Well that's well described by modern physics via Maxwell equations.

I'm sorry to say you did. Here it is: (my emphasis) Reciprocal? What does that mean? I would have guessed "inversely proportional", but no. You at least displayed the maths, so there's no doubt what you meant. So yes, you did claim that, as then I asked, quoting you, so there could be no ambiguity about what I meant. Then you said, And now you change your statement. Other members have problems with the way you use units, justify your concept of "chronovibration", and ignore quantum mechanics, so taken as a whole, I'd say I have very well-founded misgivings that your theory could ever be turned into a sound one, considering you only claim to explain the anomalous quantum Hall effect. You've proven to me you have no understanding of what magnetic charge means in the context of the classical electromagnetic theory.

Since you have only presented a strawman of the mainstream view, this is moot. Relativity says nothing about “time frames” and copies of the physical universe. That sounds vaguely like the many-worlds interpretation of QM, but one must note that MWI is an interpretation, and not actually QM. Similarly you seem to be offering an interpretation of the prevailing view, which is not the actual science.

They are both angular momentum. hbar is used in probability theories, which I am not presenting. Surely you have seen my posts regarding the prediction of magnetic charge and its tested result in the quantum anomalous Hall effect.

Surely there is some basic premise that’s testable. Every bit of effort you put into telling us how you can’t present your theory is effort you could have put into telling us your theory.

For anyone to beat sense into me it would help if they've actually been to a boxing Gym for more than a few years because that is what it would take. Thank you genuinely to the mod that deleted my last comment. Lost my cool. Won't happen again.

I was responding to Ottos sincere question then Dim decided to have a go. Where was I being fucking childish MigL? Will be you I take into a boxing ring at this rate if you don't learn how to read the room and tell the difference between someone just trying to engage with the discussion and a shit stirring gobshite. One is childish, the other is just trying to discuss without attacking folk and I do not appreciate being charecterised as a child for not taking shit lying down. Go and just leave it alone like Swansont already asked. Like I literally wasn't even fucking talking to Dim and he just pipes up with the trolling because I won't agree with his nonsensical crap in another thread. Thank you!

Before I could explain anything, you need to explain how these statements conflict. And yes, I missed this post earlier. I answered the other part of your question in another reply. The prevailing view in physics states that time dilation is real. Within Minkowski coordinates, time dilation is defined as moving among time frames, which quantifies a physical linear timeline. If you are going to say there is no movement among time frames, then there is no physical basis for claiming the existence of time dilation. Either physical matter moves among time frames, or it does not. And don't make the mistake of thinking I disagree with either Special or General Relativity. I fully agree with the equations of both but disagree with the ontologies. If there is no physical evidence for a physical linear timeline, then the time dilation ontologies cannot be accurate. Yet the correct ontology could be that space is quantized and experiences density gradients. Clocks orbiting at higher altitudes move through a denser space than at lower altitudes. Thus, clocks at higher altitudes tick more ticks per orbit due to space density gradients than at lower altitudes. Thus, the clocks will lose synchronization exactly as calculated, but they will remain in the present moment and not disappear into a different time frame. No satellite has ever popped out of the present moment or popped in from a different moment, thus falsifying the concept of time dilation. Chronovibration removes the possibility of time dilation. Physical evidence supports chronovibration, and no physical evidence supports a linear physical timeline.

The prevailing view in physics does not assert that a 'physical linear timeline' is real. General relativity is widely accepted and demonstrates that time is relative and not linear (and also absolute). The theory's equations are non-linear.

In my experience the content in the OP was learned before the power rule which is the basis of both the product rule and derivatives. I found that through limits prior to learning (a/(b+1))^(b+1). You'd think looking at the power rule a^b; f(a)=(ba)^(b-1) that an integral would be f(a)=(a/b)^(b+1) where does that a/b+1 come from. Before learning integration I learned R=r+1 to work on a miss-written derivation problem: The diameter of the garden was actually 8", the radius was for 4" on the bottom lift picture there. Anyway the problem was admittedly miss-written. I learned why the integral adds one to the dividend which had the same value as the exponent from an error in the construction of a word problem. If I had to guess I'd assume I was in a simulation where a learning computer feeds off what I figure out to create more arithmetic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_amplification

Listen very carefully. The prevailing view is that a physical linear timeline is real. A physical linear timeline, such that matter could dilate from one time frame to another, requires each time frame to be populated with a complete copy of the physical Universe in each time frame. An object cannot move among time frames unless there is a physical place to arrive at. There is zero physical evidence for physical matter in any other time frame than the present moment. There is much more than can be said about the lack of physical evidence for a physical linear timeline. You are asking me to provide physical evidence demonstrating that chronovibration is real, but you have no evidence for the prevailing belief. Chronovibration is proposed as the oscillation of forward and backward time such that the net result is the present moment. Physical observations are made of subatomic particles with half-spin properties, but the half-spin does not apply spatially to rotation or angular momentum. In chronovibration, the half-spin nature of subatomic particles applies to the particles seeing only the forward time direction. This would cause subatomic particles to age in the forward time direction while physically existing in a present moment, a present moment that makes no progress toward the past or future. This is what we physically observe. No physical matter has ever been observed leaving the present moment or appearing suddenly from a different moment. So, the physical linear timeline concept has zero physical evidence, and the chronovibration concept agrees with the observable physical evidence. As I mentioned before, and this is my answer to observing chronovibration, the photon speed constant and the Compton wavelength constant are empirically determined. Therefore, the time component, whether linear or cyclical, is automatically inferred as a constant. This type of reasoning occurs throughout physics. I do not have access to all the current technology, either physically or in its literature. This leaves the possibility that someone with available resources would be able to devise an experiment that could physically prove or disprove the concept of chronovibration. Please do not impose more upon me than I can handle, especially with my meager finances. I didn't claim that the ratio of magnetic to electric charge is the same in all particles. In fact, I disagree with that statement. I said the "mass to magnetic charge" ratio is the same in all particles in the Universe. However, I appreciate you applying your skills to what I am presenting, even if you didn't initially understand what I had stated. I am hoping to inspire others with greater skills in electrodynamics to apply Standard Model tools to the new unit system I devised. Although the QMU is based on dimensional analysis, the relationships of the units are different from MKS/SI and some mathematical treatments. I suggest that several of the current math operators in electrodynamics should be dimensional units. If the system proves valid, it would greatly simplify physics and open its understanding to more students. Maybe my system will crash and burn, but my success with QAHE and the Gamma Ray single peak should spark interest in physicists looking for better ways to quantify physics. No, let's not. Yes, it is true that both electrostatic fields and magnetic fields possess divergence. Divergence is not due to the charge; it is a property of the field. Getting into fields is a valid line of inquiry, but let's first gain a common understanding of the geometry of the charges to better understand the fields they produce, at least within my physics theory. I already understand the Standard Model narratives about point particles, their vectors, probability functions, etc. If I was here to improve on the Standard Model, I would say so. Instead, I have said that I am proposing a different understanding of fundamental physics. I propose a different paradigm based on the same constants and data but with different ontologies. This results in a modified set of equations with new equations added. I would not mind sharing my explorations into magnetic moment, but not until we have the same understanding of magnetic charge and its importance in physics. Please tell me that you can understand how the experimental evidence for the QAHE strongly supports my claim for the existence of magnetic charge. You don't have to say I'm right; acknowledge that you understand the simple math that supports my claim.

Burning fossil fuels releases carbon stored for millions of years. Burning a tree releases carbon that was sequestered for tens or hundreds of years. Wood was once a tree, a living organism; it may not be 'fossilized', but it is no longer living. You're making essentially the same point. It is the rates of release compared to re-capture that have changed dramatically and are throwing the equilibrium off-balance, Increasing the rate of re-capture, or sequestration, can, in theory, be just as effective as reducing the rate of release, in controlling amounts of atmospheric CO2. Possibly not as easily achievable, but if Iceland has a workable method, I see no reason to dismiss it.