Brett Nortj

The vest way to 'remedy a flood' is to use salt, or, a derivative of salt, maybe a new chemical, that sucks it up quickly?

I figure this would take about a week, tops to get right. Then, in frequently flooded areas, they could have fire trucks that spew this stuff, or, those big road sweeping trucks dealing with the problem?

Should take a week to get the chemicals right, or, less. I figure maybe some cation based natural stuffs... negative charge to attract the mass, into it?

On 31/07/2018 at 4:48 AM, prashantakerkar said:

Is it possible to compute the inverse of a 4*4, 5*5 .... Matrix ?

If yes, will it be difficult computation ?

If no, why ?

Thanks & Regards,

Prashant S Akerkar

On 14/08/2018 at 5:14 AM, prashantakerkar said:

Thanks.

Can I conclude that the inverse of a 4*4 or 5*5 Matrix can be computed but it is a tedious long process ?

Thanks & Regards,

Prashant S Akerkar

 

Take all that 'junk' and put it to a cross section, and reverse the point to point scales.

On 12/08/2018 at 8:16 AM, Noa V. said:

     So, this is new for me. Recently I have been thinking on something that bugs me a tiny bit, and I suppose it has just gotten my gears turning to the point where I'd even want to coin a paradox of it. The "Veer" Paradox, if you will. This is somewhat hard to compose in a manner for you as a reader to understand. Let me try this though. 13.8 Billion years back, let's say we are at the point of the Big Bang, moments before it's grand eruption. What made the very fabric of Space Time? What happened before this point? What happened before that point? What about before that point? This sounds stupendously simple, however, I have spent entire nights elaborating, just trying to settle the chain of questions. If you think very long and hard about it, it is truly thought provoking, because there logically HAS to be an answer, but you know you'll never quite get there. I wish to start a fun, brain teasing buzz in the community, and hear what people think actually happened before the point of the Big Bang, and if they get equally as frustrated with the magnitude of questions that follow trying to even barely comprehend it. I also want thoughts and feedback of my idea on me coining the phenomenon. (Disclaimer: I am aware that this is more of a Universal topic, but I figured it can be philosophical seeing that it touches on the beginning, and the potential point of existence, because you'll be left questioning it if you truly think about what I have stated.)

Yes, I have answers, having thought about the same thing, as you, I and everyone else...

[1] It simply was. Instead of not being, there it was. Instead of nothing, something, yes?

[2] The big bang was a result of 'realization,' things struggling to be. As soon as they conceived of a thought, there it was. This was like a spark.

[3] The gases of nothing were compressed, and, they exploded?

[4] There is a manic cycle of repeated 'universal heartbeat.' This resembles a star emerging, becoming a black hole, and exploding into a star again, through a heart beat function. This is where the cycle repeats, always losing density as the black hole sucks less in that it sheds every so often. The universe is expanding now, but it is getting 'thinner,' okay? This means it will eventually stop getting bigger and begin compressing again, crushing us and everything, as a star blue print. All scientific methods are interchangeable, as they follow logically through.

On 13/08/2018 at 10:29 PM, Edemardil said:

Hi. So I have a rube goldberg I made in Algodoo and I have to finish a qualitative and quantitative description of it. I am getting an A in this class and I don't know why but there are two parts that I am having trouble with in my machine. If anyone can help.

#1. The first is the collision on the top of the incline. I have to provide the equations and calculate the transfer of energy and momentum from the ball at the bottom of the ramp to the ball at the top. A ball drops into a hole, rolls horizontally for a few meters then rolls up an incline where it interacts with another ball at the top being held there by a lever. The ball going up the ramp pushed the smaller ball through the lever where it drops onto a ramp continuing the system.

How would I calculate the momentum transferred between the ball that rolls up the incline ramp and the ball resting at the top? I know that the momentum is decreasing up the incline as well as the acceleration and velocity. But does the angle of the incline come into play?

So far I've done: 
V'1 = (m1 – m2)/(m1 + m2)(v1) 

V'1 = (42.4kg - 12kg)/(42.4kg + 12kg)(4.30m/s) 

V'1 = 2.40 

V'2 = 2m1 / (m1 + m2) (v1) 

V'2 = 2(42.4kg) / (42.4kg + 12kg) (4.30) 

V'2 = 6.70 

But that's only really the velocity before and after the collision and it's probably wrong because I didn't know how to implement the incline when calculating those either.

For energy transfer, I am going to use:

0.5m1v12 and for after the collision 0.5(m1+m2)v22 

 

#2. This ball then drops down to interact with two vertical "levers" with axles in the middle of them. I'll post photos. I am really having trouble describing them more or less because I don't know what a good description of the objects them selves are. Are they levers? Latches? Hinges? Pendulums? This is keeping me from really describing them quantitatively because I am having trouble finding the right formulas for transferring energy, velocity, force all that, through that part.

Could someone help me or vaguely lead me to a direction to look for both items? 

It is the yellow vertical poles that I am talking about. I have to provide equations about the change in type and amount of energy, and calculate the energy, velocity and force for the system. Which I guess ends with the last lever hitting the ball and the ball falling off the other side onto a "see-saw" but I'm thinking that maybe my system is too big or complicated and I should just do the part where the ball falls from the platform and lands on the see saw. But I will still need to describe the previous system of the small ball interacting with these two yellow levers or whatever.

Link to images: https://imgur.com/a/WZ04zCR

[#1] I think your velocity equation is easy to understand, but, you need only subtract the mass from the velocity, okay?

[#2] For the levers, you need only use a 'tap rotation idea,' okay? Have them spin down like that, looks better too,. Naturally, it will lift up again through pressure applied from the bottom, where a spring can push it back up, and, then repeat process?

On 27/07/2018 at 11:19 AM, Dennis001 said:

Hello i was trying to build a fuel saver system for my small engine 5.5hp 4 stroke. Its a fuel vapor system. But without going into to much detail about it, because at this point i think i have something good and dont want to tell many people about it. All i need to know is when my fuel vapor system is in operation it gets super cold and my engine dose not like it. What i am asking is, if i put to much air through Petroleum dose it go in a cold state. Or what happens to it. If i add heat from the exhaust will that bring it back to normal.

Adding heat from the exhaust would result in used fuels mixing with unused fuels. This will replenish the used fuels, as they cool, and then there will be homeostasis.

Very good idea! This will result in getting more fuel out of the engine, and, reusing old fuel.

To make it even more useful, you could 'condense' the used fuel to create a permanent fuel cell, like a rechargeable battery, yes? Be careful, there might be too much density build up, but I cannot see that going on for a while, but, it will heat up the engine as it purrs along...

3 hours ago, beecee said:

So pray tell, what is the electron in an atom of hydrogen pushing against?

Leaving that pseudo claim........

Great detailed answer Marcus! This is obviously Pauli's exclusion principle in operation, correct?

Well, my answer sees the gases having too few electrons to polarize, so they travel through the atom, making it a gas.

The electron is pushing against the other electrons like a 'fullerene.' This is where they would enter the proton, except that there is another electron pushing against it as if it were a another negative charge trying to enter.

A you can see, it pushes against it, like that. This gives it structure and support, so that the atom does not implode.

4 hours ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

!

Moderator Note

Brett Nortj, this reads like soap boxing. Do you have a point related to the thread title that you wish to discuss? If not, this is getting closed.

 

Yes, you may close it.

With the foundations for maths out of the way, it is time to teach children to read and write. With the basic skills needed for progressing to higher grades being founded upon counting and literacy, they also need to be able to write, yes? Yo see those patterns they make in grade one and two - do away with them. This is training them for cursive, and, that is harder to understand than print, okay? Basically, the patterns teach kids fluency with the pen so they may make good characters, easily overcome by using s stencil, in fact it is far quicker to train the muscles to remember the strokes with the stencil than with a free hand pattern that nobody will be able to read one day.

As a reason to why they do it this way, in the past the focal point to education was being prepared to take short hand, and, that required cursive and abbreviations, especially for secretaries. This means they need to simply forget about it ad work on touch typing. This is also becoming a thing of the past, with the invention of tablets and touch screens, but, will see it's place in the office albeit it not in the private lives of young adults.

So, how do we train kids to read quickly? Playing scrabble in the classroom will suffice, and will quickly elevate them to become literate. This will be where they need to learn syllables first, and, that requires some sort of visual aids - the projector, of course. Basically putting a lot of characters on a the projector, and, pointing with a pen to them, will allow those that know to say the right thing, and those that do not know ill just follow, yes?

~ Kids of this age like tests, it makes them feel grown up! Capitalizing on this innocence from grade one will be where they can go from child to child and ask them three letters each , maybe every Tuesday and Thursday? Then, they can play scrabble in grade two and learn to make words, of course!

Ways to get children to identify the characters could be done by showing them the sound that it makes is the shape of their tongues when they say them. The flicking of the tongue into a snake, or, "S" would be a good way to remember, yes? an "A" would be where they would need to see the space in their mouth being filled by the tongue going upwards, and, an "M" could be where they go up and down from place to place like a the vibrations of the breath on their tongues. Yes, 'uncle Sam wants you!'

The teacher can just make things up, of course, but needs to write them down. Maybe two or three ways to remember would suffice, personally, for a year. Then, they will recognize the characters and relay them to the lesson or query, being prepared. After three hours a day, for a year, I a sure they will be prepared!

Previously, I found that we can remain young by inserting a woman's ability to generate egg cells into our bodies, to blend the cells of the young with those of the person. This will replenish the youth of the individual and make them get younger, maybe ideally to the point of twenty five or so?

~ Obviously, this is truly sought? Maybe I will get a patent and grant for this notion?

Then, the balance comes from your organ, built from nano bots, as, this is a new organ, which generates egg cells constantly, broken down and not classed as foreign, so as to not be identified and secreted, will be where they circulate in the blood stream and rejuvenate the other cells at pace.

The theory for this organ is to take the womb and find out which hormone grants the ability to generate the egg's new form. Simply finding this 'genesis hormone,' will show that we can shed cells into the stream that rejuvenate the system.

6 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Most of the atoms in your body are hydrogen, oxygen carbon and  nitrogen.

Only one of them is a semi metal.
On the other hand if you look at the semi metallic elements 

"The classic semimetallic elements are arsenic, antimony, bismuth, α-tin (gray tin) "

Form

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semimetal

You find they are more or less toxic.

So you are utterly wrong.

Most of the other stuff you posted there is also nonsense or wrong.

 

Why do you post this dross?

 

Thanks for the help.

7 minutes ago, Sensei said:

The most abundant metal in human body is Calcium, which is in bones. Calcium is very little soluble in water.

The next are Potassium, and Sodium, indeed they are very soluble in water.

The forth is Magnesium, which is very little soluble in water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body

Majority of metals in human body has the all electrons paired..

Neither Calcium, Magnesium, Sodium nor Potassium.. they are not semimetals...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semimetal

Yes, well, I have trouble finding a term for these, as I find them very soluble, as in a new classification of something between gases and metals.

The human body and that of all organisms is where we find that it is merely something that reacts - matter that is less dense than that of metals yet more dense than gases. This is because the semi metals comprise life, and, they will always. True, that some metals are also there inhibiting us, but, these are there for gentle dissolving, where they slowly dissolve in our bodies and get a lot of influence due to their magnetic fields, of course. These fields will give off some form of radiation, warming the body, as, that is what they are there for.

~ This is like a floating pool cleaning device gives off a meagre amount of soap every now and then, but floats near the creepy crawly pipe. This is also like a light giving off, well, light, in the form of electromagnetic radiation fields, of course. The thing is, with the bodies warmth lights the metals only slightly, for a gentle interaction before they are excreted and replenished.

So, the body is merely more reactive than that of 'dead mass.' This is because they have a lot of water in them, or,  cocoon water. If you were to observe a glass of water, then you will know that the water will not penetrate the glass, so there is no interaction, but, glass within the water will influence the water, as it is more dense, and, has more protons, where they will give off a 'field of reproduction,' where this will lead to the glass within the water making the water more heavier, or, more dense, slowly. True, after enough time the glass will melt into the water!

~ A better example is a water sack in the desert by a cowboy, like a water skin. This will be where the leather, like our bodies, will mingle with the water, and, well, the leather will get cooler or warm the water. This is finding balance, of course!

Lots of nerves, lots of cells, lots of reactions!

The basics of chemistry are made easier if we observe that the periodic table is scary when it hit's school kids, no? If we know that, then maybe we could observe that we will need to learn the chemistry song as a school motto, if you do science, and, why not do science? Learning the order will for example tell you how many protons and electrons each element has, besides the orbitals, which I am still working on finding a formula for, and, before that we can observe what molecules are, to get kids interested in what they will be applied to, of course? This will ignite the interest, or, dismissal of the subject early on, as, that is what it is all about!

So, bonds are where things bond together, atoms, elements, chemicals. I always call semi metals liquids, so, please bear with me regarding this? The bonds are where the mass of one thing is greater than the mass the mass of something else, where the magnetic pull of one over another, like the moon orbits the earth, are where the protons of the moon resist the pull of the earth, as they are charged with the same type of charge, being made of the same stuff, but, the one is trying to dominate the other, as when you have one set of electrons greater then the protons of another, or, when there is 'imbalance,' then there is as 'friction' and attraction between the two, as, they are dominant and submissive [~ sort of like sex!].

Now, that is "why" they bond. The gluons or little sticks you see between the atoms, are strands of resistance channelling energy between them, and, resisting them occupying the same space. This is because each cell fights to dominate the space it has, seeing it's own quest to survive, and, this is shared by all conscious and unconscious forms of matter, as, they will see more of them as being good for them. They will bond because they will look to 'subjugate' each other, but, resisting each other of the same type. That can be likened in nature, as a go between between zoology and physics, the studies of nature, and, yes, chemistry is also a study of nature, where they will like see other alpha males, okay?

Cells are bonds of living tissue, where they come together to 'use each other.' They collect, as do animals, as do particles, to support each other. This is a community thing, okay? This is like a atom being made of a neutron, which is dead mass that pulls things towards it as it is negatively charged, like a little fridge magnet, lulling mass towards it like a "anion," okay? This is why we see them collecting, to make a community the best way they can, and, they will support each other in a mutual relationship, of course.

I am trying to find a way, using psychology and visual recognition techniques, to teach kids from grade three to grade five the basics of maths, so they may learn my more advanced maths earlier. My goal is to filter the maths down, so they may gain confidence to approach science, and then take first year college subjects in high school, so as to prepare them for college studies, or, produce a competent high school graduate.

In grades one and two, they should play rummy with cards, to learn to count and add and subtract. This number recognition is essential for higher grades, and, playing scrabble will lead to basic language education for the in a fun game for kids, of course.

If we were to approach the maths as B.O.D.M.A.S. foundations, there is room for improvement. This would be where we basically identify the patterns of maths, as, as a science, there are patterns to be found. I learned of this on a Japanese web site and found they use a stick method of multiplying, that I cannot totally recall the exactness of.

Anyway, with maths, there is a foundation of 'bonds.' Like with chemistry, the numbers bond and 'filter' in various ways. When they are added or multiplied, they are bonding, when they are filtering, they are subtracting or dividing, yes? Maybe this will lead somewhere...

Maybe with counting on your toes we can make this a new method? Basically, for addition, it is easy, let's get to multiplying? With the model C maths I learned in primary school, we used the units of five and zeroes for estimates, then filled in the blanks. This is where we use the zero or tens to add a zero to the sum, then sub multiply the smaller amounts to the total. For example, if we were to multiply five by twelve, we could say that it is [five * ten] + [five * two], yes? This would break it down into smaller bite size chunks, and, multiplying would be made easier, of course.

With division, far more common in science and engineering, we would simply divide by tens, and then fractions or let overs could be converted to 'real numbers' - I forget the term now - where we could take the left over numbers, times them by ten and divide them by what we are dividing them into, of course.

17 hours ago, fieldunificationman said:

Given, there are times we are creative in isolation. What is creativity, but a move to inspire the self and hopefully others? A moment of vision to share for others to see or hear or experience while reaching to understand ourselves

~ Hello, I like your name, i too believe that each science compliments the other, like obviously physics into chemistry, and that into medicine, and, that into biology,and that into psychology, and that into humanities, if you will. You can also reverse the links, of course.

If you are exposed to something, then you can draw from that source to fathom why it is the way it is, then how it relates to other things, then, through harnessing the wild thoughts inside of us, where we have our own unique perspectives, we logically put together new angles, yes? This breeds new creativity, ideas, notions...

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Exactly. A good government provides the framework to allow each type of ownership to do what it's intended to do. Focus on the economy benefits the already wealthy far more than anyone else. 

A big part of our problem is that most of the best solutions are fairly boring, and don't get air time against the outlandish things our leaders are doing. Medicare for All is a no-brainer, quick and simple (not easy, simple). It will scale nicely, and as long as we give them back their bulk purchasing power, Medicare will do well. Fixing existing bridges and other infrastructure problems is equally boring, nothing innovative, and doesn't attract attention from the electorate, until the bridges fall down, then private companies swoop in to provide the fix at triple overtime because our leaders let it get so bad. But there are many who think a wall between us and Mexico is more important than all those bridges and sanitation facilities and water treatment plants.

I'm very tired of the Republican party in this country. They're overrepresented, they're the only party that actively and willfully fails to do the job of certain agencies they don't approve of. They're ignorant of climate change, so they put morons in charge of the EPA. They don't care about OSHA, they don't care about FEMA, and the only thing they want to do with public education is turn it into an investment opportunity. They've destroyed the integrity of our media, they've continually put profit ahead of people's lives, and I hope the newer parts of the party (the Tea jerks and the White Supremacists and the Neocons) rot and fall off like the disease they are. 

That said, I don't want the Democrats to have all the power either. The wealthy manipulate the Dems as well, but we usually get better social focus. 

When the economy grows, ability to buy grows, and, that is founded on the poor getting hired, as the middle class become wealthier, the they ascend and the poor take their place. Think of a pyramid, as the top gets broader, the bottom must grow to support the top, due to needs at the top, and, supply at the bottom.

14 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Morals are always subjective even the ones you list are obviously subjective and i have a problem with even defining them as morals to start with... 

Are you sure you are right about that? If you are, then I am right, of course, as that is the foundation of my opening post, no?

12 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Of course. I wasted four years on a business that was wrong. I knew it, but I thought I could make it work. I eventually admitted I made a mistake and moved on to something else. 

I've been wrong about plenty, but I've been right often enough to experience life well.

Why would I lose the motivation to live just because I found out I was wrong about something? Being wrong is not being a bad person. Being wrong isn't evil. I don't understand why not being right about something is a reason not to live. Are YOU that concerned with being right? Because I have to tell you, you post a lot of misinformed, wrong stuff. I don't know where you picked up most of it, but it's wrong. That doesn't make you a bad person, it just makes you wrong. Fix it and you'll be right, right?

Strength like physical might? Endurance strength? Strength of character? Tensile strength? Agile strength? Explosive strength? 

You talk about absolutes, but you talk about them subjectively. You're going to fail with this approach. 

Isn't it stunningly obvious? Hell, if common sense itself was in question... Obviously people think they are right, better and loved. Ask anyone? It is only through civility that we get along.

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I disagree with the ones you have, and I don't think morals are absolute, not in any way.

To prove my point, I don't always think I'm right. There are times when I know I'm wrong. No absolutes.

I don't think I'm better than anybody else. "Better" is so subjective. I think people are a collection of experiences, and everyone has something to teach me.

I do think I'm loved, just not by everyone. What's the matter, do you think nobody loves you? Why would you think nobody loves anyone else?

So NO, you haven't illustrated that there are moral absolutes. You've illustrated that you think you can force your definitions on ALL people, and I've illustrated that you can't. 

As you define "strength". I'm already unimpressed with how you defined "love", so I think I'll reject these "roots" as well. They're all subjective, and you're fooling yourself if you think these are universal and absolute.

Okay,

Do you think anybody will ever think they are wrong, seriously? Not in terms of the things they say, looking back, they adjust themselves and continue as being right, yes? Same with the rest, nobody can think these things as they will absolutely lose motivation to live.

Strength is a source of incentive, to seek it, to feel it and to admire it in someone's idea of you.

Moral absolutes are founded on the idea that there will be some mental approach that all people share, something they all hold dear. I have illustrated that there are indeed some, so, let's get some more? This would be where we could say that all people also have the same biology, so only acquired tastes in some food would deviate from finding the same food tasty, of course.

With that theory, we could also say that everybody likes the same things, yes?

With variety of economic systems out there, there is a lot to choose from. Unfortunately, there is only examples of how it turned out for each country that tried it, and each country is different. This means that there is no way to tell if it is right for you country, as this would require a sample of the climates of customer trends, loan availability and history, opportunism and other factors too. Hell, it comes down to being so specific it is mind throbbing.

So, to simulate the economic system, the best the state can do is work it out on paper. Without marketing analysis, there would be only assets - yes observing the assets of the country is the onyly reliable information to work with, as this shows things in cement, not graphs of tendencies.

With that being said, some economic systems compliment some political systems.

On 26/06/2018 at 12:40 PM, Ten oz said:

By now we all understand that Trump often lies on twitter. One of the more Machiavellian things he does is proclaim policy changes which he hasn't actually made. Like when he proclaimed the military would not accept trans-gendered individuals yet it is or his repeated tweets about his travel banned which has actually been blocked, rewritten, blocked, and rewritten some more. The genius of the tweets of course is that his follows often assume the policy changes have been made. It  is a way for him to gloat about things his supporters wish were happening whether they actually happen or not. Those tweets, while ugly and dishonest, I view as politics as normal. A politician lying about what they've done or will do isn't new. 

What is new is Trump using Tweeter to threaten international partnerships and confuse the status of global economic trade.

For those who do not follow Stock Markets closely the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) is down over 2,000 points since January (3 trillion dollars) which is the longest sustained losses in 9yrs. Not merely yesterday but all year Trump has been tweeting out various threats concerning trade and tariffs often changing his mind or the target of his attacks week to week. The Stock Market reacts every time he does this something his economic team absolutely is aware of. If anyone had any advance warning, even 30 minutes, of what Trump might tweet next regarding Steel, Aluminium, China, media mergers, or etc they could use that information to make a lot of money in a very short time buying or shorting stocks. 

Is this ethical? If it was discovered that Trump was using his influence to swing market via a tweet to enrich himself or others is that insider trading? In a post Trump world what laws should the U.S. put in place to ensure a repeat of this can never happen again?

*DJIA is a stock market index that shows how 30 large, publicly owned companies based in the United States have traded during a standard trading session in the stock market. It is the most commonly used index to gauge the status of U.S. markets. 

Yes, the markets are affected by people of power making statements. This means they need to think what they say will be heard, and, if they say something about trans gender soldiers. they will affect the democratic community that is all lesbian and gay and that affiliated. If that happens, as most of the traders on wall street are democratic, they will become dubious or doubtful of a market gain, due to the baggage they bring with them, that they feel the state of markets is affected by other traders that will defy the state, and then the currency will plunge, of course  they are related, you see?

Now, if you were to observe this is like running around saying the sky is falling, then that would be a good observation. This liberal mess needs to get out of there, just because they are bred in cities and go to college doesn't give them common sense.

~ Hell, if I were there, I would start buying when the president says something stupid, with all these little softies around... Then you will get something that is still worth something, with the exchange rate going down, so it will be the same thing for cheaper!

Maybe I should have come here first?

I hail from Cape Town, and, have studied every science known to man off internet searches.

I plan to be here for a while...

Made two friends already! Hey, it is a hard climb to the top...

47 minutes ago, beecee said:

I don't really believe so. But one would I suggest be at least educated in that appropriate discipline and be familiar with whatever he or she is trying to come up with. Seredipity could also play a part. In reality even though Einstein's theory trumped Newton, does that mean he was cleverer then Newton? Perhaps what Newton said about standing on the shoulders of giants is relevant. Einstein in that scenario, had more shoulders to stand on.

As we stand on each other's shoulders, indeed.

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

That hasn't got anything to do with magnetism has it?

I walk along the road pushing a wheelbarrow.

Obviously I need to apply a force to the barrow pushing forwards.

Newton's laws tell me that there must be a force pushing back on me.

But I'm not moving backwards so, there must be another force pushing me forwards.

That force is supplied by friction where  my shoes meet the ground.

 

Without friction you wouldn't be able to walk.

 

It's as if you have not thought this through.

 

The strength of the message to the atoms is greater pushing you forwards as you have more mass.