Senior Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About TakenItSeriously

  • Rank
  • Birthday 03/12/1964

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Silicon Valley
  • Interests
    Problem Solving, Poker, Physics, Engineering, Digital Security
  • College Major/Degree
  • Favorite Area of Science
  • Biography
    Learned SR, GR, & QM at age 7. Resolved myself to altruism over religion the age of 17. Solved EMI issues for Gigabit Ethernet which had blocked its rollout for two years.
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

7676 profile views
  1. Finding large Primes using Standing Wave Harmonics

    Yes, that’s exactly right. A seive is one dimensional which is why they always need to be started from 0 and very innefficient in terms of storage space while the matrix can be two or three dimensional and the base can be a primorial of any size. The larger the base, the more composite number collumns are segregated out and the greater the probability that the remaining numbers are either prime or semi-prime. There are a number of huge advantages over a number sieve. Thanks for the link. It does indeed appear to be based on the same principles though I never intended it to be used as a method for faster prime factorization. My aim, at least in part, was to find a method for a faster primality test for discovering large primes, especially Mersenne primes. I can see how they might succeed using quantum probability analysis to speed up the factorization process though. Prime factors are harmonic which was the basis of the PFHM after all.
  2. Why can’t we derive velocity directly from it’s doppler factor?

    Yet Relativistic Redshift isn’t accounted for, for galaxies that are receding at speeds appraching the speed of light? That suggests that time dilation isn’t accounted for at those speeds either. Time dilation will cause luminosity to dim which could have easily been overlooked just as length contraction was overlooked for the cause of time deviation in the Twin Paradox. What may seem obvious in hind-site is not obvious in fore-site. Please trust me on this. It has been the lifelong bane of my existance.
  3. Why can’t we derive velocity directly from it’s doppler factor?

    Ah, I see. So your suggesting that if you use relativistic redshift then the numbers don’t agree with the Cosmological data is that correct?
  4. Why can’t we derive velocity directly from it’s doppler factor?

    I’m not following the basis of your argument. Luminosity which is used to determine distance is essentially the same source and time that relativic redshift came from. So how could light be an invalid source of information in the case of redshift, but be a valid source for distance? In fact light is essentially the only source of information used in this case. It seems as though you are just trying to make the claim that Special Relativity is wrong.
  5. Since we can measure the doppler shift, relativistic or otherwise, of a receding galaxy why can’t we use the equation for calculating the Relativistic Doppler Factor (fs/fo) which I will call r for ratio, to derive the galaxies recessional velocity? fs/fo = √[(1+β)/(1-β)] r = fs/fo r = √[(1+β)/(1-β)] (1+β)/(1-β) = r² β+1 = r²(1-β) β = r²-r²β-1 r²β+β = r²-1 β(r²+1) = r²-1 β = (r²-1)/(r²+1) where: fo is the frequency that an observer sees fs is the source frequency that we can find from its spectrographic footprint β = v/c r = fs/fo If the galaxy is in redshift then r > 1 ⇒ 0 < β < 1 If the galaxy is in blueshift then r < 1 ⇒ 0 > β > -1 The negative velocity only means that the objects are moving closer together instead of further apart so we can see that the absolute speed should never exceed c according to Special Relativity.
  6. A Logical Explaination for the mysterious results of Buffon's Needle

    Edit to add: Regarding the larger space, I might define a large square for populating the random positions of the universe in a cartesian coordinate system and then I would define a large circle within the boundaries of the square and call it a horizon. Then I would assign random vectors that pass only through those points within the larger circle so that the points in the corners wouldn't create a bias and the horrizon was always equidistant from the circle. This would then preclude the idea of using multiple circles of course.
  7. A Logical Explaination for the mysterious results of Buffon's Needle

    The Pics didn’t get into the final draft so here they are now: I’m not sure I would call the Bertrand Paradox all that mysterious so much as confusing. I wouldn’t accept any of the three premises given as valid. Premises should be axiomatic and self evident as far as being valid and the premises given are definitely not axiomatic. My guess is that they are a problem with boundary conditions combined with conflicting properties that cannot be both defined in a non biasing way for both properties at once. It may not be possible to provide a proper definition for random chords to the circle except perhaps in an infinitely large universe which, of course is not practical. For a decent approximation, I might try picking random positions within a much larger space than that described by the circle and then assigned to them random vectors for a random distribution of lines that may or may not pass through an arbitrarily defined circle, but I would use a space that was much much larger than the given circle such that vectors that happened to intersect the circle from a long distance away would make an insignificant contribution. I might also position the circles in a random manor perhaps even using multiple circles with triangles in them. It’s just my first guess at a reasonable approximation of random that would represent an unbiased distribition or a homogenious isotropic environment FWIW. I’m not sure how well it would do in terms of convergence to a unique result.
  8. When I first came accross the mystery of Buffon’s needle, it was presented as a mystery because, apparently, nobody could understand why it would result in the value of pi or what the problem of scattered needles had to do with a circle. You might actually do the experiment and find that the results really did statistically converge to pi as the sample size grew larger or you might find the mathematical solution would indeed result in a probability that is exactly equal to pi. You might notice that there is a cosine of the angle between the needle and the lines on the table involved. You might even be able to construct a circle to describe how the cosine function relates to a circle using trigonometry, but even then you still probably wouldn’t truly have a clear and direct physical understanding of why the problem of randomly scattered needles should be related to circles. Here, I don’t present the mathematical solution which you can look up online from a number of sources. Instead I present a simple and logical model that explains the problem in the proper physical context which in turn will make it clear why circles are related to randomly distributed needles. Once again, Once you understand the solution it will seem simple to you as all logical solutions that are properly explained will seem relatively simple compared to the math. Perhaps it will even seem like it should be obvious once you understand it and you may not understand why you didnt think of it before but unless you could physically explain it in fore-site before hearing this solution, then it clearly wasn’t really as obvious in fore-site as it may seem in hind-site. I present this solution to you not just to show off that I have a gift for solving logic problems, but to provide yet another example that shows why logic really is just as important as math and that logic and math are not the same thing. Neither is logic just an alternative method to mathematics for solving problems that can be used as a substitute for math. It actually performs a completely different function from the math as I’ve said many times before: Logic clarifies our understanding of the problem while math quantifies the numerical results of the properties involved that can then be compared to experimental results. In fact math and logic are actually complementary opposites. Another words we cannot truly understand a problem without a logical model that can explain it and we cannot truly know that our understanding is correct without validating the mathematical results with experimental test. Problem: Figure 1: Buffon’s needle is a probabilistic method that can provide a good estimate of π based on random events. Assume that you have a needle that has a length of l and a surface that has parallel lines on it that are all equally spaced at 2l distance apart. If you toss a needle in a random manor on that surface such that it can land in any arbitrary position and orientation, then the probability that the needle lands inbetween the lines divided by the number of times that the needle will intersect with a line will be equal to pi (π). Another words your results will approximate 3.14... etc. with a sufficient sample size and the larger your sample size the better your approximation of π should be. The mystery of this method is why does it approximate π which we know is a constant that must be somehow related to a circle when there seems to be no circles involved with this method of randomly scattering needles. Logical Explaination: There is actually a simple logical explaination for this mystery and to understand it more easily I will provide a probabilistically equivalent scenario to illustrate why. Instead of using needles we can use clear plastic discs that have the needle embedded in the disc such that they perfectly bisect the circumference of the discs. After all it will still represent a random position and orientation just as the needles would. In fact they would probably be more random than the needles themselves since needles are not perfectly symetrical and they may be tossed in such a way that may be biased while the disc surrounding the needle would ensure a more random or unbiased result. Given in this new context, it should now be clear that the source of pi is linked to the circular shape of the disc. Put another way, think of the position of the disks and the orientation of the needles as independant properties. It is the probability distribution of the needle’s orientation that has an even disc like distribution about their center of gravity. By taking all the angles accross the entire sample space then the orientations of all the needles would stack up to be a random sample of all angles between 0 and 2π or between 0 and π if the needle is symmetrical. So you can see that on average, the orientations of all the needles should combine to be distributed in the shape of a disk. If by some extreme long shot, they did not create a reasonable disc like distribution, then you probably would not get a reasonable approximation of pi as your result.
  9. Who Works Where?

    Betty, Carol, Dan Marketing
  10. Two multiple choice questions

    B & C edit to add: I find that these types of problems are often flawed with more then one valid answer.
  11. Cheryl's Birthday

    A third person can deduce it must be July 16 using all three clues.
  12. Real Test Of Genius

    If my cross was red then it would be trivial for either Wombat or Breeze to know that their cross must be green. Since neither could answer, then my cross must be green.
  13. The Logical solution to the Twin Paradox Explained comprehensively

    Thanks, I really appreciate that. To answer your point, this is why I think that logical models and mathematical models are complimentary to each other. Where one is prone to intuitive error the other is not and vice-versa. Therefore you could say that math and logic are cross validating because they always follow different vectors of reasoning. edit to add: BTW, sorry about the unwieldy username. It’s based on a bit of word play. On other forums such as twoplustwo.com which is fundamentally a poker and gaming forum, I go by TakenItEasy. Lots of people there called me Taken for short.
  14. The Logical solution to the Twin Paradox Explained comprehensively

    Both twins would hear their own transponder at 1 ping/second and that never changes. When the ship is on the return leg, the earth twin would be recieving the ship’s twin’s signal at three pings per second and the ship’s twin would be recieving the Earth twin’s signal at three pings per second. So it’s still symmetrical. Both would be due to relativistic blueshift, but when frequency increases, it doesnt just mean in pitch, but in cycles per second which in this case a cycle is a ping. That doesn't mean that time would actually be sped up, for anybody. it’s only a timelag illusion where the ship is kind of racing its own light. Another words as the ship is leaving Alpha Centauri at 80% c, the light and radio signal is leaving Alpha Centauri at 100% c. So from the Earth FoR the light takes 4 years to reach Earth while the ship takes 5 years to reach Earth. With only 1 year inbetween the two. That means the ship must transmit 3 years worth of pings received in only 1 years time. On the other hand at the turn around, the ship has experienced only 1 year of pings from Earth due to that same lag time because the “now” time is still four years away back on Earth. So now the ship is racing opposite that light coming from earth from 4 years in the past plus the 5 years experienced by the Earth for the second leg of the trip so 4+5 or 9 years of Earth’s pings are crammed into 3 years of travel time for the twin on the ship. It’s confusing, I know, but I hope that makes sense.
  15. Is there any reason this Quantum Telegraph couldn’t work?

    The photo electric effect was a paper published by Einstein in 1905 which proposed that an electron could be created by light striking a surface with light The explanation for how light could cause the ejection of an electron was first postulated by Max Plank, Albert Einstein, and Niels Bohr: that light was the occurance of energy in descrete quantities or quanta (which later became known as photons) which was the first time light was proposed to be more like a particle than like a wave as it had previously been assumed to be. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was published in 1924 which stated that it was impossible to determine two complimentary properties of a particle at the same time. The Schrodinger Wave Equation was derrived in 1925 and published in 1926 which provided the same conslusion based on eigenstates, but interpreted properties of particles as a kind of wave probability state. The Copenhagen Interpretation which was largely devised by Werner Heisenberg and Niel’s Bohr in the years 1925-2927 was in large part about interpretating these confusing results of duality that seemed to behave sometimes like particles or sometimes like waves. The dual slit experiment that resulted in evidence of both a particle state or a wave state for light depending on wether their path through either slit was observed or not was performed by Davison and Germer in 1927 and was also the experimental basis for the superposition argument of quantum mechanics. It was later shown that electrons could also demonstrate either a particle or a wave state in the same manor. BTW, I may have been wrong when stating that the copenhagen interpretation was largely based on the dual slit experiment according to these dates which I got from Wikipedia, apparantly the dual slit experiment was in 1927 while the interpretation was developed between 1925-27 so the dates might have suggested that it was seen as more of a confirmation of the copenhagen interpretation, or perhaps it was adapted to conform to those results. I’m not sure. Entanglement was predicted in 1935 by Einstein, Podolski, and Rosen and later confirmed through experimentation. However, it was introduced as a thought expeiment that was the basis for his arguement that QM was not complete because it implied that the speed of light would be violated based upon “spooky action at a distance”. In 1964 Bells inequalities was published refuting Einsteins claims that QM was incomplete based on “spooky action at a distance” violating the speed of light, and used the EPR entanglement and the premise that classical probability and the probability of QM are different. Note that while I thought his conclusion about instantanious action at a distance was probably correct, I had strongly disagreed with his premise which was flawed. In fact it’s riddled with flaws to be honest. In my opinion Mathematicians should never try to rely on proofs using logical models. They are simply not equiped to handle logical models because they were trained to think like mathematicians not logicians which are complimentary opposites, just like position and momentum are complimentary opposites. You can’t know both at the same time. Classical probability had never been completely resolved before and was always considered to be an approximation of probability based on incomplete information. For instance the triangle pattern predicted by probability theory is only a function that is supposed to be an approximation of the actual odds, while the wave pattern predicted by QM is much like the binomial distribution pattern that statistics predicts and that the triangle fuction is supposed to estimate. So making claims that they are different and forcing some kind of conclusion from that difference is meaningless. For the record, I agree that QM as it is recognized today is incomplete. But I also agree that instantanious action at a distance is probably true. I never understood why saying that QM wasn’t complete should even be in question? To be fair, I think that Relativity as it is recognized today isn’t complete either. Clearly, neither theory can explain everything so how could anyone say that either theory is complete? Just because I admire a person doesn’t mean I will agree with him on everything. Or just because a conclusion such as instantanious action at a distance may agree with my own thinking, doesn't mean I will agree with a flawed premise such as that proposed by Bell. To do otherwise is simply corrupt thingking towards some biased agenda, just like politics. When scientists behave like politicians, why would they wonder why peole don’t trust them anymore.