Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About Conjurer

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sir Roger Penrose has been doing some work on developing a mathematical model for how the brain actually works. He suggest that consciousness itself may exist in a state of superposition which is actually in the realm of quantum uncertainty that theoretical physics does not clearly define. Our physical brains may actually just be interpreting quantum weirdness when it comes into contact with energy to give us the illusion that we are self aware. It has really got me thinking that if that is true, then there is a part of our minds that we cannot normally access that can obtain information with a spooky action at a distance throughout space and time. Our brains do filter out a lot of useless information during our dreams, and maybe people develop schizophrenia from their brains not filtering out this kind of information. It would open the door for a scientific basis for any hooky idea about the mind having any type of extrasensory perception. If you follow along those lines, it could mean that the person may have actually experienced their schizophrenic episode in another dimension or universe or possible future or past. Their brain just failed to filter out that information during a traumatic experience of their doppelganger. Our dreams, for a healthy person, may actually just be an ancient relic of a previous state of the universe where spatial and temporal tensors put too much stress on their eigenstates, that their brain just filtered out.
  2. That is exactly why I wrote a couple of paragraphs after that. That was hardly touching on the point I was making. Maybe, some patience here would do some good? IDK? Is there some greater point to be had from waiting around here for clarification of why you posted this comment? Or, will I just end up practicing some Hinduistic ritual while I sit here and hum while I meditate on it?
  3. The only widely known philosophical idea that I think that I have heard that is actually bad is "Patience is a virtue". If you really take this idea to heart, you basically just end up sitting around your whole life waiting for something that never happens. Someone that is a real go "getter" will always beat you to everything you are waiting for to happen. Maybe, it would be better if instead it was, "All patience is worth while of being is a virtue". Then that may be the reason why people stated it to be that to begin with, because that is the only thing they could actually conclude what it actually is in every case. Then maybe it was actually a good philosophy, but it just creates stumbling blocks down the road for the person hearing about it. It doesn't actually have to provide a positive outcome on your life to be a good philosophy. It only matters if that it got you to think about something more deeply to arrive at a better conclusion or understanding of the world around us. That it has accomplished.
  4. I have heard from some of the greatest minds of our time that it is truly amazing how we can be self aware with consciousness and a feeling of self without ever really knowing or having any idea how the mechanisms in our brains work to provide us that feeling or even possibly figure out how such a thing could even be possible. After reading your post, it reminds me that may just actually be a false assumption made about the general population. It may actually only be the greatest minds that actually posses this ability. That was an assumption which has never been proven by experimentation. From all the information I have been given, there is really no way to know if your mind ever surpassed the infantile stage which is trying to figure out the surrounding world around them and how it functions. Is it possible that while someone in this state of mind with speech comprehension could have some special viewpoint or advantage to see how the brain functions to tell us how we arrive into conscious self-awareness?
  5. I would suggest that the silicon inside of the tube is just acting like an oscillating diaphragm which is just increasing the intensity of the changes in volume of the air. It would be like taking a slinky and putting it on a vibrator, but then it creates bigger waves at the other end from the smaller waves being added together. Then having a better seal would increase performance. It would make the diaphragm react better to the changes in density created from the heat traveling to the other colder side of the tube which has the piston. The heat may just be traveling to the other chamber in steps or burst to make the silicon resonate. You may try using different materials there and see how that affects the performance. If I was you, the next step I would take would be attaching an AC unit to the Stirling engine in an up scaled model to improve performance. You could have the hot side chamber have the compressed freon, and you could try to seal the piston chamber with cold freon. If that was too difficult, you could simply have the cold air of the AC to blow on the piston to make it run as long as it has power to start out with. Basically, it should at least just have a radiator to functionally drive something. If I am correct, it may not matter which side is hot or cold. It may be better to have the piston be the hot side. It would have friction which would naturally cause heat to make it more energy saving and efficient. That could make a big difference when trying to scale it up to actually run something which needs a piston driven motor. On second thought, it may not actually be a good idea to have heat driven pistons, because it would cause the engine to overheat to where it could have mechanical failures. That is the reason why combustible engines use a radiator to begin with.
  6. Okay, I believe you. What now? I tried to tell them something like this and they down-voted me into oblivion when I first started on this forum. For some reason, I have lost my right to vote. I expect to get randomly banned for no real justifiable reason sometime soon over it. Do you know how they were able to distinguish between a photon and electron in the experiment? That also seemed to be a fundamental issue which is in dispute on these forums, not to mention the fundamental theorem of calculus... It may be just because strange is a Chinese speaking person from Italy, now. Do you believe that electrons can act more like photons or waves if they are not observed? They also tell me that all electronic signals are made of light, because electrons are too massive to behave like waves. What kind of light could this hypothesis even shed on this issue?
  7. I don't see it as being anything different than the philosophical argument that, "if a tree falls in the woods, did it make a sound?" That is a philosophical issue that is said to have never been resolved. I don't see how your argument approaches a greater truth to this or can even better things by thinking differently about the world or how it could even be applied or used to anything. All it does it invoke a reaction of, "Whoa, dude that would be crazy!" It makes me wonder if this thread could be used as a reference for proving that they legalized it. It could be used for a more enjoyable trip while on psychedelics. What's even crazier is that quantum mechanics says that a world with no observers would just exist in a state of quantum flux, and no object would have a real speed or position. One of Einsteins arguments against acknowledging quantum mechanics was that it would mean the moon wasn't even there unless someone was looking at it. Of coarse, quantum mechanics ended up being one of the most proven scientific theories to exist since then, besides that.
  8. The twin paradox based purely in Special Relativity is truly a paradox, meaning it cannot be solved this way. In this case, both observers would actually measure the others clock to run slower. Then it is impossible to imagine how this can take place. The problem is that it assumes that two observers could have always existed in the universe with a constant relative velocity, but this would actually be impossible. Everything accelerated from the point of the Big Bang, so every two objects would have had to had acceleration relative to each other in their history. Even if you assumed that they were at a constant velocity relative to each other and their acceleration was due to the acceleration of spacetime itself, it would still have relative Doppler shifts. Then Doppler shifts solve the paradox in terms of acceleration.
  9. Conjurer


    The reason you find or take a limit is when the values cannot give you an exact answer in an equation. Then the equation can be graphed, and the limit assumes the value that the function approaches on the graph. It is an extra step that can be taken to make a graphical analysis to find an approximate answer by looking at a graph. You can say that it is a certain value, even though the calculation of the variables in the equation cannot give you an answer. It is another way of trying to deal with infinity or infinitesimals in of itself. The main reason why this method isn't used in a lot of work is because it is not known if it has been proven to be reliable, but it has been proven to be reliable when finding the derivative. Limits can potentially give false values, presumably. I have never seen any evidence of that.
  10. The derivative of a horizontal line is zero, and the derivative of a vertical line is infinite. In those cases, you cannot resolve infinity or zero. The derivative of a line intersects a point on the curve, because the height or distance between the two points in question is zero. If h is not zero, then it would intersect at two points. You are missing the logic behind finding the limit. When you take a limit you are discovering what the value would be when it actually is zero by looking where it approaches on a graph. Then you don't have to graph it to see this every time.
  11. My bad, then the answer to the derivative of that would be zero.
  12. The equation y = 1 or y = constant is excluded from this working. It is a vertical line, so it fails the vertical line test, and it is not a function. It has to be a function.
  13. The derivative is the equation of the line that intersect a curve of a function at exactly one point. In order to accomplish this, the change in x and y has to become zero, or it will intersect at two points on the curve. All you have to do is cancel out the change in x on the bottom with the change in x on the top in the equation of the derivative. It doesn't matter if the change in x is zero. You just have to write the word limit x->infinity in front of it. Then writing that makes it correct by some sort of ancient alien magic.
  14. It is a necessary step to finding the instantaneous value of anything in Newtonian Physics. This is like asking if Newton knew how to do Newtonian Physics. I already explained this, and it is described in the video. Khan academy is now an accredited university.
  • 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.