Brett Nortj

On 16/07/2018 at 7:33 PM, zapatos said:

I'm not convinced they are politically partisan. For example, I don't see a belief that the Constitution should be "interpreted" rather than "applied as written" as Democratic vs. Republican. Just because Republicans or Democrats prefer a specific judicial philosophy does not mean those judges with the same philosophy are being partisan.

Everyone deserves to be represented, so, to combine the decision making to one person is a bad idea. If there is one party representing one side, another representing the other, the media present to observe the ruling of the third party, then there is hope.

This I have been staring at for about half an hour now, and, have found that the elecronegativity can be worked out like the weights of elements I depicted at a earlier point.

Basically, you take the atomic number, or, number or protons, and, observe that every time the number increases, (-1) [Atomic radius] (+1) [Ionization] (+1) [Electronegativity], coming to +2 per atomic listing. This means that Hydrogen is [3], and Lithium is [5], okay?

Then, that number that it comes to is divided by the row it is on, times by half the column it is listed in, okay?

~ This is still a work in progress, so please help me find out the formula?

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

EM interactions do play a large part of what happens in atomic structure (but they are not exclusively EM). Nuclear structure includes both the strong and weak interactions. You are painting with too broad of a brush.

What do you have that's new? If you are using already-accepted models, what phenomenon do they predict that have not been investigated, and what are these predictions?

This brush is all that is needed for my theory to prove that electromagnetism, as has been debated, is based on protons and electrons, being the strong and weak forces.

~ It was found as recently as last year that the weak force was the electron. I concluded that the strong force was obviously the proton, Or, vice versa.

1 minute ago, MathGeek said:

History has shown the value of skepticism when someone asserts that a given area of science is completed and wrapped neatly with a bow.

To my knowledge, most of the remaining areas of interest in electromagnetism are in the area of interactions with matter.  I did a lot of work early in my career in the area of interactions of very strong fields with matter - multiphoton effects of light with atoms and very strong static electric and magnetic field effects with atoms.

More recently, I've contributed to a few projects relating to whether certain species are able to detect electric and or magnetic fields - so called electroreception and magnetoreception.  I suppose one could argue that these are more biology than physics, but as a physicist who understand the fundamentals of E&M and carefully considers potential detection mechanisms I was a valuable team member.

Nice to meet you.

Just now, studiot said:

Yes you are merely speculating and the rules say this should therfore be in speculations.

Placing it, as apparant fact, in the mainstream confuses those with less knowledge.

Swansont has already told you that modern atomic structure theory is based on quantum theory.

Are you aware that not only does this describe a shell structure for the electrons but also a shell structure for the nucleus.

 

How do I prove my theory other than with foundational accepted already working models? I have done that.

Just now, dimreepr said:

OK, I'll bite what is x?

[X] is just an expression for the symbols combined, a new symbol - no rule says we cannot add or use our own symbols.

If you want to find the mass of an element, and you are writing a multiple choice test, as, with the focus of chemistry tests being based on multiple choice with weights and mass of elements, there is a simple 'formula' that anyone with basic grade six maths can learn. If you find you need to find the weight without a multiple choice option, you obviously have the option of opening a text book, yes? So, on with the test scheme!

This follows that every entry of weight is nearly doubled based on the atomic number or number of protons. There is little to choose from on these tests. If it is based on areal quantity, then it will be easily identified with this doubling of atomic number, yes?

The rare exceptions come within range anyway. There might be a fluctuation of one or two here or there, and, on the test, the numbers after the decimal are easily ignored.

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Atomic structure is indeed based on a theory — Quantum Mechanics.

And what do quantum mechanics say about laws of attraction and repulsion? Is there a base for my ideas of electromagnetism being based inside the atom too? If that is true, and, things are merely bigger representations of this model, where, if it works inside, it works outside too, like laws inside our atmosphere and outside our atmosphere... I hope you can agree with me now?

This is a formula for finding orbital clusters around each element I worked on about a year ago, but, I could not find anyone on the forum to confer with me the ideas presented by myself.

This follows, after the liquids, when metals begin, it takes on a formula.

If you ever played dungeons and dragons, the magician's spell advancement table will show you the amounts of orbitals per level or proton beyond first, of course. This means there is one s orbital, or 'level one spell' at firs level, then, two s orbitals or level one spells at second level, then, a third new type of orbital with those previous ones at level three or with the third metal. At the fourth metal after on the table, there are three s orbitals and two of the second type.

Really helps to consult these games!

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

No, not really. While you have some vaguely true statements in here, it's not presented in a way that one could agree that it's correct.

Same thing here. 

 

Am i merely speculating, or, does this not show that the atomic structure is based on a theory?

On 30/07/2018 at 3:08 PM, Itoero said:

What causes excess heat production heat production on a cellular level?

Can it be related to oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction?

This is called friction, as the movement of the cells when they move, or, circulate, causes the heat production. This is because the cells need to move to relay fuels, and, circulate the system, so as to stay fresh - if they stayed in the same place, they would stagnate and die. Like exercise. If they stayed in the same place, they would have the effect of us lying on our backs doing nothing; deteriorate.

12 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Electromagnetism has nothing whatsoever to do with the weak and strong interaction.

This is where the attractive forces themselves come from. If they were not attracted to each other, the whole atom would fall apart, and, there would be no matter. So, if there was no attractive force between other things, due to electromagnetism, there would be no things, world or universe. This follows that the world is held together by electromagnetism and everything is affected by this fundamental force.

The atom itself is held together by a neutron that bonds with the protons. This leads to zero friction, as they have bonded. Then,t he electron will be attracted to the proton, held back by the repulsion of the other electrons coming together like a fullerene compressing onto the protons. This is like those things made of sticks that get bigger and smaller at the same time, complexly put together to expand and contract at the same ratios and rates.

This electromagnetism thing is noting to be scoffed at.

This would be [infinity] * [2n] = [3] * [2] = [6] * [x]

Then, [5] * [2] = [10] * [x]

Then, [7] * [2] = [14] * [x]

So, the  answer is double prime times by [x].

Or,

[N] * [2] *[X].

1 hour ago, studiot said:

[X1]

perhaps leading to [X2], [X3], [X4] etc.

Is this any relation to the person with the Chinese avatar, who is spreading havoc in a Physics forum website about this nonsense?

I am not sure I know what you mean, but I like your take on this.

11 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

gases are not static.

You can just put a wire in sky- no need to condense anything

No, it's not.

It's not a source of energy

And so on.

G wiz, I cannot remember writing this so poorly. Thanks.

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

I have seldom seen so many fundamental errors in just one post.

Which exactly are you referring to?

Electromagnetism is the combination of the strong force, being supplied by the proton - magnetism - and the weak force supplied by the electron - electricity - coming together to found electromagnetism.

Basically, friction leads to activity. If we are to observe that without motion, there is nothing, as there are no bonds, then we need friction, supplied by the constant struggle between protons for electrons. This is the fundamental force of, well, everything.

Quote

This statement is where we could use my own new type of maths I am trying to bring into secondary education through my company "Hydra." I have spent a lot of time planning new approached to maths, at secondary and tertiary levels, so, please bear with me and observe where the strengths are of my new system? This is just an example of how it can be applied, of course.

[9H] * [6K] * [2X] * [1Q] = [108A]. This is because the powers can be applied to the symbols and then taken as '[X1]'. This leads to a simple set of symbols to multiply.

Then, we take the [108A] divided into the symbols on the left that we recognize, being [H], [X] and [K], coming to [HXK] = [108].

This leaves the [DG] being equal to 'the left over bits.' This means we can say [HKX] = [108] and [DG] = [X], so, that means the sum on the left equals [HK2X] = [108].

Or, did I make a mistake somewhere... I am in a heck of a hurry!

On 28/07/2018 at 7:20 PM, ALine said:

Ok so if there is a set amount of money inside of a community and there are people who store currency instead of spending it then wouldn't more money need to be printed in order to allow everyone to be able to have money. Thus causing the general value of the money as a whole to decrease. And if this is true then wouldn't that mean that all currencies connected to that communities currency would be directly affected by the value of the communities money as well?

Probably wrong about this

You have the right idea, but the money stored is just bits and bytes in a computer. There is no shortage of real cash, although if the money is 'hoarded,' then it will create a shortage which means the money will be worth more, with the supply and demand ideals, of course.

If you were to keep money out of circulation, then there needs to be more made, yes? The thing is, the system will always lend from the bank, where the money is stored, and, that means that the money will grow, which means that there will be more money with less in circulation, creating a shortage! This is where there is more with a shortage, great for the economy, of course, if handled correctly.

Money decreases in value based on currency trading, where the exchange rates between entities changes. This is the only time money gets worth more or less, and, this could be nucleated or inside the country or city too.

On 25/07/2018 at 1:55 PM, sumanth said:

A signal is variable in  time domain , why we have to use transform tools(Fourier transform) to frequency domain?

if so  signal transformed what kind of characteristics we could get?

or In which way that transformed signal is useful ?

Thanking You 

waiting for your valuable answers.

I think I will show you what a signal is with classical analogies before I attempt to answer your question, using terms that kids will enjoy and understand, yes?

A signal is a density of energy, and, energy is related to mass. If you carry a massive pulse of energy to another receptor, it will interpret it on it's reception of that 'electrical signal' and then charge the system with the power gauge, owing to the message of the pulse, or, 'logarithm of pulses,' okay? This is like a constant message, in the case of radios, or, cell hones, television signals and so forth from beacons sending this out. This is also found on a circuit board bus, for computers, by the way.

Now, your question owes to time? This would be the 'density' or 'charge' of the signal. Volts. If the signal is tuned to a different frequency, we can discern whether it is radio frequency, television and so forth, of course. This is for reading the signal, if it is too frequent, it will over clock the receptor, for that medium, and be ignored, but, if it is just right, it will be interpreted and used.

Look, I don't really want to play with the tedium of voltage, but if you wanted voltage from the air, you need only condense the most static of gases, [oxygen]. This is the best conductor, so, will be the best source of energy. If you were to observe that if you rub your hands together, you will generate static, and you can apply that shock to whatever you wish, you could also use the carbon in the air, to bond with the oxygen - hey you got 'soot.' Soot is 'gaseous oil,' for lack of a better terminology, and oil burns easily, so, from the air, your best bet is to go to China, and, 'rub that stuff together,' yes?

If you were to merely condense the soot, you will have a sort of water vapour cola effort going on. If you were to spark a room filled with soot, enough of it, you will get a fire, in the air. This is because the carbon is just in gas form, and, has lost mass. This means that the carbon it he air can become a source for the energy to be generated, of course. This means, as there is conductive gas in the air, there could be a power source, although a weak one, unless you 'compress' it. This could be done by, as the op says, air compression, and, that is because the compressed air could also be viewed as a canister of aerosol, where it generates more mass than it has outside.

Converting this to voltage or something would require a 'beacon' or receptor in the area of the compression, of course. As mass is condensed onto the receptor, the energy, as mass is stored energy, will collect into the 'conductive receptor.' This could be made easier, with, water vapour. This would take the static and bond it to the beacon, and, then the energy would collect into the receptor, of course.

But, this is explaining it for kids, if you will. Yes it will work, in my opinion, no doubt.

17 minutes ago, prashantakerkar said:

Thank you.

Do the reverse methods will vary for different sound file formats?

Thanks & Regards,

Prashant S Akerkar

No. They always compile, as they are written on a text file, of European base language format, from top to bottom, so you just find the data or sound bits, and compile them the other way.

~ If they used robots, like they should, you could manually do it by taking each robot and changing the order, of course.

May I ask what your fancy is, why are you into this... this... perversion of music? 

5 minutes ago, prashantakerkar said:

Is it possible to reverse play a sound file?

Sound formats viz .wav,.mp3,.aac etc.

Thanks & Regards,

Prashant S Akerkar

Well, you could do it with software, or, hardware.

With [software], you would want to simply want to 'reverse the play' by reading the file backwards. This can be done by recompiling the file to compile from bottom of the page of text to top, of course, but, let's say you do not have a compiler... Then you would want to simply change the binary for the file by taking the last bits of code and 'recoding it,' via... you now what, this all requires programming skills and programs, that might cost money, why don't you just 'record' and drag it back, with a small program for that? You can program, yes? This would require a mouse program to slowly at the right rate, hey I am no disc jockey, drag it backwards, yes? Should take about fifteen minutes or less, I figure.

With [hardware], you need only to reverse the charge. This would require the circuits operating in the same way, but only 'charging the file' to 'flip.'

On 04/05/2018 at 8:39 PM, caledonia said:

I seek a proof, (using the properties of the h.c.f.),  that if k divides nr then k = k₁k₂  where k₁ divides n and k₂ divides r

Well, as a layman, it would seem that if [k] = [k1k2], then [k] = [2] itself, as [1] * [2] = [2]. This is just speculation, let's get more intense?

If the [k] = prime and divides into [k2], then six would be the lowest figure of the range, as the lowest figure for [k1] would be [3], as the lowest prime, so, we could run a log of [3] to find the 'ratios' of one to two, of course. this would follow, basically, that if [k1] = [3], then [k2] = [6], and k = [18], and that [k1] would actually be [k/3], and, that [k2] would be [k/2].

So, if [k=18] as [k=3=18] then [n] would be [k/3].

But, I am just a layman in this vast world.