Jump to content

ALine

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    258
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

25 Nice

About ALine

  • Rank
    Atom
  • Birthday 03/05/1996

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Math, Computer Science, Modeling everything else
  • College Major/Degree
    Mathematics and Computer Science
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Mathematics
  • Biography
    I like to make structures
  • Occupation
    Student

Recent Profile Visitors

5085 profile views
  1. What if meta-cognition is the brain thinking about the concept it has formed of itself just as how the brain thinks about the formed concepts it has developed of different objects inside of its environment. And instead of the brain thinking of the brain thinking of the brain recursively the brain thinks of different cognitive objects in which it has direct mirrored control over such as say a hand or an arm which surmise to a singular entity it has formed and connected it to a concept learned known as "itself." Learning in this case just implies that the language and working for the word "itself" has been acquired through some sensory means.
  2. then would the sound possibly come from their potential crunching of paper bag due to there strong jaws being able to provide a large enough force and not there movement on the paper bag? p.s. apologies if this was an implied understanding
  3. I think that the intensity of the sound from an ant would depend on the material that the ant is stepping on. If an ant is stepping on a empty metal bag then than is going to emit more sound than being on say a rug or a carpet.
  4. thank you for the correction, learned something new today
  5. well there are an infinite number of possible inventions to create and discover. The first thing that pops into my mind is "apple-pizza." Invention is just the combination of different things. Now if you are trying to discover "useful" inventions that is up to self interpretation and is a subset of the infinite number of things. And a sub set of infinity is itself infinity. Now for the scientific fields they give you a rule book to follow and tools for design in order to determine if an invention will work or not. Think of a magical spell book for a wizard. Scientists and engineers are basically wizards who have collected this giant tome of knowledge full of rules from observations of reality. Your job as an inventor is to study those rules and come up with new inventions using those rules for objects properties and the phenomenon in which they produce. Same, except the money part. Reality is what you make it kid, Just don't go crazy. If you focus on and chase the money you will never invent to your highest ability. You will only invent what investors tell you and they do not really have an imagination outside of money. Its like your going to people who do not understand something and asking them to give you something they do not have. These quotes are your sails! What makes your heart soar in the darkest of times. You cannot compress the infinite search for the impossible! You are not supposed to narrow it down, that is the point. Use them as your winds of discovery, if you do not like a rule in your tome of knowledge question it and repeat the experiment. If you do not like an invention that has already been made break it and look inside and build something new. Skipping in the tome is fordiden if you want to invent anything possible. And mechanics is one of the most important parts! You can make robotics, automata, rockets, cars, etc. As an scientist you are a discoverer, looking at the tomes to question and explore and explain As an engineer you are a building of the known As an inventor you are both and engineer and scientist bottled up into one. If you give up, you will never create that lightning in a bottle.
  6. dang, that is exactly what this is isn't it. Dang, thought I made some kind of break through in the field of energy
  7. I actually just watched a video describing an understanding of relativity, not sure if it was general though. It goes about stating that every accelerating body, no matter where you are is equivalent. So if you are falling from a building somewhere or in the middle of space they are equivalent instances. In regards to being on a spacecraft surrounding a massive body you as not actually being "attracted" to the massive body, whereas spacetime is actually curving i thiiink outside of your inertial referance frame, do not quote me on that one. It is like not moving while at the same time things are moving "upwards", however I beliieeeve one of einsteins equations states that this is allowed due to a certain part of his equation. If you wish to learn more about this, or get the full understanding, Veritesium on youtube gives a much better rendition of it than I. Check him out! Yep, from what I understand everything is represented by a given model of the framework of reality, not reality itself. I do not believe that you can fully and accurately represent reality with 100 percent accuracy and precision because once ya do it becomes 100 percent wrong the next pico second. Thats just the way it works, no existing explanations of reality is ever or will ever be "correct," they just match up with observations more and more.
  8. I believe that you are refering to logic, if this is the case then you may be attempting to replicate de Morgan's theorum. In which case you are very close. What made you believe that this expression that you came up with is correct. May you missed a small step somewhere in your logic.
  9. Systems Presentation: The Vapor Engine Today I would like to present to you all a concept for an technology called the "vapor engine." All criticism is gladly welcomed and encouraged. Outline First I will begin by providing a non-formal design for the concept, Next I will go into explanation for how the system works, Next I will end by presenting potential issues that I see with the given system and why it would most likely not work from a personal perspective. Finally I will discuss potential applications for this system I then leave it to the forum posters to critique and analyze the system as a whole. Thank you for your time Part 1- The design (Figure 1) (apologies for the poor design quality, I will attempt to make up for it in the description) part 2 - The Systems Description The vapor engine is a system in which follows the following process. Fluid is deposited into the upper portions of the system, It then flows through a turbine fan and then the fluid becomes deposited into a resting chamber. After which a centralized heating element or an environmental heating source is used to vaporize the fluid. Next the fluid travels up to the highest point of the container until it reaches the systems ceiling. Finally a cooling element is then used to convert the vapor back into a fluid state in which runs the turbine. The systems energy to power the turbine, I believe, would come from both the heat of the environment along with the weight of the fluid. part 3 - Potential Issues with the System 1) Enough water would need to be obtained form the vapor -> fluid conversion in order to run the turbine, because of this very little, if any, power would come from this system. 2) if placed in a heated environment the cooling would be a problem to condense the fluid from a vapor to a fluid (*There are potentially thousands upon thousands of more issues, however have not spent much time thinking about this system so I have not discovered them yet) part 4) Potential Applications 1) an interesting demonstration of a scientific principle in a container I want to finally thank everyone for taking the time to read through this idea, Have a wonderful rest of your day. (Figure 1: personally developed image)
  10. @studiot naw its cool in terms of you being in a rush and having to scan it through quickly, I'm going to need a minute to read through it and comprehend it. and yes some thing like that but also being able to expand the concept of set theory to all counting problems.
  11. ok, that makes more sense
  12. thanks man, I have been working on it and I think I am starting to understand the product rule more clearly. Here is the statement I am currently working with... " Suppose that a procedure can be broken down into a sequence of two tasks. If there are n1 ways to do the first task and for each of these ways of doing the first task, there are n2 ways to do the second task, then there are n1*n2 ways to do the procedure." Below is a picture of how I am currently interpreting it. I think you need to split up the procedure into multiple sub procedures or "tasks" and there are n number of ways to do the first task and for each of those n1 number of ways to do the first task there are n2 number of ways to do the second task. I am starting to get it however I having problems digesting it conceptually.
  13. interesting, so for clarity and learning sake say if I have a 0 and I multiplied it by a 1 would the 0 be considered symmetrical? Because I started with a 0 and ended up with a 0?
  14. Ok, so I'm taking discrete mathematics this semester and I cannot....can not, for the life of me understand the basics of counting. I was in class an the professor was talking and everyone was agreeing and I was sitting there wondering about how many fries can go with a shake, because I saw my future and it involved flunking out of college *little bit of humor there* . Any help, any would be appreciated in understanding the concepts of counting. The first thing that I need help on is understanding the core principles behind the product rule and how it relates to set theory so that I can at least have some reference.
  15. ok, so I am taking discrete mathematics this semester and I have no idea what is going on. So imma get to understanding that first before even attempting this project that I have been procrastinating on.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.