ALine

ye, however I feel like I could have learned more about it, yet I have this conscious block which I have developed over the years to be adverse to learning. Possibly due to me needing to sit down and learn the things vs. putting stuff together. However I do not think that this is the right thread to be talking about personal adherences to certain ideals. But again thank you sooooo much for the assistance. You guys on here are amazing, thank you for spending time points to help me and others with their problems and ideas.

I have a question in regards to the usage of the Laplace transform. ( Please note that I only have a single class on the understanding of the Laplace transform so I have surface level confidence in its understanding. ) Would it be possible, hypothetically, to store information using the Laplace transform to change signal data into a signal representation and then stacking signals over and over again until you have a larger and more "complex", using the term complex as a way to say that it would be a very large amount of signals stacked on top of each other, signal. Which you can then use the inverse Laplace transform to select certain harmonic levels to retrieve original signal data? Below is a picture to visually represent what I am thinking of. Thank you for taking the time out of your day to assist me in this question

hey, just wanted to let you know that I completed the presentation and have received my grade for it, a solid A. Thank you for the assistance.

This is awesome, thank you again for the assistance! And yeah, got it. Just Google BN and basically what I am looking for.

Yes this is a great start, thank you. I've gone through the wiki and have found a few values. However, in regards to Bandgap I need to state whether it is either a direct or indirect Bandgap and when looking into it I found that there is a sort of controversy about it. Is this true? Also I cannot seem to find it's resistivity and conductivity values. Thank you again! Edit: If I am asking for to much please inform me. I want help, however I would like to also kind of go into it and not be given answers. I need to start holding myself accountable for my laziness in regards to learning.

Hey, I have a project in my microelectronics class and trying to do research and learn more about h-BN. Are there any open source resources that I can get a full understanding of its properties? Thank you for the assist.

I feel as if it would be much more easier to maintain and manufacture on a large scale. Repair in the sense that you can easily just buy a metal plate from your local hardware store and then just place it over the area that it damaged. Manufacture being that the only really complex parts are the electronics which make it up and the inner seating design. On the outside it seems really easy to just manufacture because of the linear design.

It was more along the lines of "I really want to just over this fence and do the things, however I am not sure what will happen when I do it and I just need one person to give me the slightest shove so that I can have an excuse to do the things." Apologies and again thank you for the assistance

thank you for the response, it has helped me to determine what it is that I need to do. However it is to much to put all in a single thread so I am going to organize everything and put it into blog so that I can get everything organized and place it in a location which is easily accessible.

Ok so I have been reaaaaaaly reluctant to share an idea that I came up with a while back and have been working on for a long time and I am not sure what to do with it. I can continue keeping it to myself, working on it in secret. Trying to improve it so that one day it will be ready for others. Or I can share it now and gain partial notoriety from it, however this is really unlikely due to it being so weird of an idea. However I do not want to be what causes harm to others if it turns out that it is a "good idea." I can go without the notoriety, however my ego will have a problem with it, however my biggest concern is how it might affect others along with how it may be used to harm others. What should I do? Thank you for your responses p.s. I know this sounds hella pretentious, however I really want to share the idea with people and I really want to get feedback so that I can improve on the idea, but again I do not want to accidently harm anyone with the idea.

I think this may belong in philosophy, however not entirely sure. What is the meaning of mathematics? By this I mean what is its purpose/function? Is it a tool which is used to formulate relationships between different variables in order to develop constants in order to give characteristics/ properties to different things? Is it a whole different universe with distinct rules which are to be followed like our reality in order to develop and analyze this mathematical universe? Is it to model the real world and then see how they interact with this mathematical universe? Is it meant to capture changes in different things and there behaviors? Or is it just something fun to play around with? p.s. do not really have a goal for this post, just wanted to ask the question to see if a definition can be concluded. Or at the very least to understand everyone's different interpretation and understanding of the field of mathematics.

So would it still be considered a "circle" at that point? Or would its "circular value" is lost, where it is only like a background image for the different points in space? Also, if you do not mind me asking, how would this relate the x and y's and functions? Where functions are relating the x points with the y points in space. Also would the definition of the x and y graph dependent on the "space" you define them in? Like can there be different "types" of spaces? Like is x and y considered dimensions of a given space and if so does this mean that you can use other variables like time or velocity as be part of the same "dimensional space." ( when I say dimension I just mean a variable which can have a specific value on a number line) p.s. sorry if I am speculating to much, I have a bad habit of "guess to far ahead."

when you say, " fixed it in space." what do you mean by this. When I hear this it makes me think that someone is analogously "tacking" it to a wall. Or even taking like a snap shot of it and you cannot change anything about it, whereas you can only look at it and then trace over it with an x and y graph. I am also having a problem understanding this concept. Can you please explain. When I hear this it makes me think that you are analogously "removing it from reality and placing into a mathematical universe where it can be dissected." So like taking a picture of it, and then analyzing and understanding that "image."

got it, thank you for the correction strange. Did not really have a goal in mind, just "playing around with the numbers" I guess. thank you for the correction as well studiot. I feel as if I have an issue with the conversion between physical geometry and x and y relationship chart representations, I think that is the right way to say this. Need to get better at understanding this. Also, stupid question, so pi is just the relationship between Circumference and Diameter? Like if I wanted to know the circumference and am given the diameter then if I multiply this diameter with pi it will give me pi? And is pi the relationship between diameter and circumference? Like could it be described as being the number which gives a circle its "circle" characteristic or property? if that makes any sense. p.s. thank you guys for answering my questions

Hello, I wanted to present something so I could see where I went wrong. So when I was calculating the area of a circle I wanted to get a better understanding of the circumference of a circle so I found the equation for it online. ( y = sqrt(r^2 - x^2)) now this equation is for a semi-circle, but I can multiply it by 2 in order to get the full circle. so when I substituted the y term with the circumference / 2 and the x term with the diameter I got the following, ( C / 2 ) = sqrt(r^2 - (D)^2) from here you can replaced the diameter term with it radius counterpart (C / 2) = sqrt(r^2 - (2*r)^2) from this you could, in turn, combine the two r terms into the following (C/2) = sqrt(r^2-4r^2) (C/2) = sqrt(-3r^2) C = 2*sqrt(-3r^2) from this I fully reduced it to C = 2*[sqrt(-3)]*r now what made be ask this question is because the sqrt(-3) term is where pi should be. I thought I clearly made a mistake, which I most likely still have. However when I did the same this in order to find the area using integration I got the following ( solving process below ) (A/2) = integral(0->Diameter) of (sqrt(r^2)-D^2) dDiameter going through this and applying all of the substitutions got me A = (sqrt(-3)) * r^2 from going through and solving both for the circumference and area gave the same equations as if you were to replace sqrt(-3) with a pi term. [C = 2 * pi * r] vs [C = 2 * (sqrt(-3)) * r] [A = pi*r^2] vs [A = (sqrt(-3))*r^2] I must have done something wrong, I am thinking it may have something to do with the diameter term and maybe I should use this in place of an x-term. Help would be much appreciated. Thank you for your time P.S. Apologies, can't really LATeX well

Sure, just stand still and look at a clock.

Hmm, this one is a bit tricky. It is like when two countries begin to go against one another which eventually escalates into a war. When Greg initiated the arguement due to how joehaving a loud party Greg began the confirmation. If it is true that Joe had a loud party previously, but was unaware of Greg being able to hear the party then I would say the "blame" would lay on Greg. This is because Joe did not have the intention to hard Greg, however Greg, through hitting Joe's tire, wanted to cause harm. I think it would based on 2 variables, The intention of harm and understanding what that harm would do after the event of causing harm has occured. Basically hitting someone and knowing what affects of hitting that said someone. In this case if Joe was aware of his party and understood the consiquences in respect to Greg, being that he would not be getting any sleep and be tired, maybe making him late to work or something, then Joe is at fault initially. If the confrontation continues then over time these variables may become more and more distinct. Escalating to possible violence. tl;dr: Joe's at fault if aware his party is harming Greg. Greg's at fault if Joe's unaware his party is harming Greg. The first is an accident, the second would be considered purposeful leading to him being at fault.

In this thread I would like to discuss what the title describes, the possible boundaries in which knowledge can analogously extend towards. By this I mean what are the limitations in how much we can learn about the observable world in which surrounds an intelligent system, an intelligent system being one which can combine previous observations in order to develop new models and systems which can better describe that said observed world. I would like to begin by define a few postulates I have used in order to develop this understanding. Postulate 1) matter in this universe, no matter of scale, can neither be created nor destroy. Only changed Postulate 2) matter can be combined into what I am defining as "linear processes" or "linear configurations" in which I am also defining as "information" by either an intelligent system or through natural phenomena. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would also like to define what I am meaning when I say "knowledge." Knowledge, in the understandings definition, is the storage of independent linear processes, or how independent systems are themselves combined. Now that that has been cleared up I will begin my argument on why there may be limits to the boundary of knowledge in which we can develop and cultivate over time. Technological development in itself is define as the application of the sciences in order to develop useful systems or resources in which further research can be accomplished in order to develop new technologies. As this feed back loop progresses one can form an argument stating that the limitations of technological development are thereby bound to the environment in which one is preforming their said research. As the cycle continues, in order to develop a research model which is more and more accurate, previous research models are either thrown away or analogously "recycled." Where elements of the initial idea is then deconstructed and reused to develop other ideas. The more and more this occurs the more and more useful technologies can be developed because, in essence, the more and more efficient the research models become the better and better they describe that environment. However, if one where to consider the fact that in order for technology to become developed more and more you must use previously existing physical resources. Whether it be materials like wood or iron, you will be continuously utilizing these resources in order to better and better advance the technologies in which you utilize to complete further and further research. As this progresses, however, more and more energy is used. The energy in which is used to cause these interactions for these technologies/systems to be even considered technologies/system. Now granted this will not happen in the foreseeable future. However, over time the more linearity you introduce into the development of a technology through a given process, the more and more entropy you introduce as well. This is caused by the technologies themselves interacting with the researched environment in order to in turn advance the said technology. This can be caused from both intelligence and non-intelligence system. Unless new environments with new resources can be discovered which can in turn reverse the processes of entropy, then eventually the development of technology will in turn be prevented by the same environment in which on is researching. The research itself using the technology in a given environment, if the research and technology are both present within the environment, will in turn cause the entropy of independent systems within the environment to increase, thus reducing the overall "efficiency" of research and will thus reduce the progression of technological develop. Analogously this can be thought of as being analogous to chopping down wood to build better axes to chop down wood faster, except with a sort of "research and development twist." I believe that this understanding of technological research resource depletion can be direct applied to things such as our current understanding of science as a whole. In the beginning it was very simple and easy to discover new scientific principles and research different environments. However over time the linearization of different processes caused a sort of analogous "entropy increase" within the scientific community. Where things become so linearized that one can no longer fully understand the environment in which they are attempting to observe due to the "technological resources" being used up, sorry if I said this incorrectly hopefully the overall point can still be extracted from my messy wording, causing larger and larger machines needing to be build in order to discover more and more fundamental laws of nature. I may have gotten a little to much off track, bringing it back to the topic of knowledge. Let us, for a moment, assume that the above in which I have written is correct, that it is the linearization and organization of systems which eventually causes sort of "technological research resource depletion" affect to occur, what would this mean for our understanding of knowledge and how if this a sort of boundary? Well, if you were to use the definition of knowledge in which I have previously defined at the beginning of this thread, " the storage of independent linear processes" and this eventual research resource limitation then one can make the claim that "if a new environment/boundary space is not defined, and the research and technological development are within that environment, then there will be an eventual hault on both said research and technological development. And due to the linear processes which are "discovered" within the said environment are stored within knowledge then knowledge itself would be bounded as well." This however is only an idea. I would like to thank you for taking the time to read through this. P.S. Sorry for the possible spelling errors, did not fully do an "error check" just wrote the first thing that came to mind. P.S.S. There is a lot more I could go into however because this is just a quick jot down of my ideas it would take me a while to fully and accurately detail everything else. P.S.S. I would also like to apologize for such the long read.

Hey CONGRADULATIONS!!!!! A new addition to the endless wonderers of the universe! I hope she has a long and happy life exploring the unknown and doing amazing things. She is very lucky to be able to be guided through the roads of the cosmos by her new grandpop :D

Thank you for the clarification. I now understand why this would be an issues in terms of momentum conservation.

Ghideon, Could you please re-clarify this section of your response. I am interpreting this as being the exhaust is somehow no longer being present. Does this statement mean that the fuel would no longer be viable to re-use or that if a means of operation is not found in order to slow down the exhaust in the y axis it will not be recoverable due to it shooting off into space. Also I need to go back and correct myself on a previous statement. Correction: "Because the electromagnetics would attract the exhausted ferrofluid, the exhausted ferrofluid would transfer from the y-axis to the x-axis due to a strong magnetic attraction caused by the ferrofluid being attracted to magnetic fields." Thank you for your time

Thank you for the response Ghideon. The fuel would not be slowed down, quite the opposite in fact. Because the electromagnets would draw the ejected ferro fluid it would in fact accelerate it into the x axis instead of the y axis. The force which exist would be reserved however it would be transferred to the plates. This would cause damage to the plates over time however. (I think) They would act like electrons in a cyclotron (p.s. just thought about it, the distance between the electromagnetic plates and the ejected fuel would need to be large enough where it does not cause the batteries to have their power used up from having to supply so much energy to change the trajectory of the ferro fluids nano particles.)

I would like to take the time to present an idea I have come up with. Please note that I am a layman when it comes to the field of rocketry so please keep this in mind My idea is " The usage of a ferromagnetic fluid, such as ferrofluid, as a replacement of conventional rocket fuel in order to develop a rocket engine which would have the potential of recycling its fuel continuously through the usage of motor pump technology. All the while containing both the rocket along with the fuel and other components of the engine inside of a casing so that the different fluids do not escape from there respective housings. (Here is a general image of the idea that I am proposing) (I apologize for this being done in paint, I will try and improve upon the visuals of the design at a later point in time) I would like to now take the time to explain this systems functions for how it would complete the objective described in the beginning statement. I will be highlighting each section on how they work and how they interact with one another. Section(1) Section 1 Is the large fuel tank which would hold both a ferro fluid along with the highly compressible material. The highly compressible material would generate a pressure on the surface of the ferrofluid causing it to have a tendency toward the bottom of the container. Section 1 is also where the ferrofluid is recycled into along the highly compressible material. Section 2 Section 2 is the pressure controller and the ferrofluid outlet. Ferrofluid would be ejected at a controlled rate out of this nozzle using the pressure controller. This is what would cause the rocket engine to propel itself upward, that being the rocket nozzle, in a controllable manner. Section 3 Section 3 is the ferrofluid capture environment. This is where the ejected ferrofluid would be captured by a strong magnetic field generated by electromagnetic "plates". (Please note that I am using the term plates as a placeholder for a material that would capture the ferrofluid) Each "plate" would be charged by separate electronic sources. Any non captured ferro fluid would be let out into the next section. After the ferrofluid has been captured it would then "fall off" into section 4 due to the demagnetization of the electromagnetic plates. Section 4 Section 4 is a ferrofluid collection environment where the ferrofluid will drop off into after it has been demagnetized. After this it would then be drawn into up into section 5. Section 5 Section 5 is the ferro fluid recycler. Where the ferrofluid would be recycled back into section 1. Section 6 And finally section 6 is the back and forth highly compressible material storage and compressor. It interacts with section 1 by refilling it with highly compressible material. Problems I have run into when trying to flush out this idea > The magnetic field used to collect the ferrofluid would have to be strong enough in order to overcome the high velocities of the ejected ferrofluid. > The magnetic field used to collect the ferrofluid would have to be weak enough so that it does not impede the ejection process of the ferrofluid > Constant usage of the ferrofluid may cause nanoscale damage to the ejection nozzle and the motor pumps over time due to well metal scraping metal. > The compression rate of the highly compressible material would need to match the refill rate of the ferrofluid into the section 1. > The "falling off" rate of the ferro fluid would need to be fast enough that the ejected ferro fluid is constantly being attracted to the electromagnetic plates. > probably billions more problems Thank you for taking the time to read over this.

faith can lead to an obsession which in turn can prevent you from looking at any drawn conclusion with a rational eye. It is like if you had faith that your conclusion about science is correct then no amount of argumentation can remove that conclusion from your brain. It is stuck there and no matter how much it has been disproven it will always be there, waiting to strike. It creates a merger between reality and imagination where imagination takes the lead.

For the longest time, I have been trying to understand how to create and understand mathematical models. From the simplest ones growing to the more complex ones. Can anyone recommend to me any reading material, videos, or learning material that can help?