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. 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?
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. My bad, then the answer to the derivative of that would be zero.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. I guess you didn't watch the video and you are unwilling to learn. The video describes how you can divide where the change in x and y becomes zero. The equation for the derivative is the same equation they use in hyperreals.
  11. I don't believe he wrote it from the grave, and I don't see how that is possible unless it was planted by ancient alien astronauts. Last I heard, it was considered to be a holy relic that couldn't be accessed by anyone, so people like you couldn't get their grubby hands on it. The fact the mods would desire me to have to provide proof of this is absolutely disgusting, and a clear indication of the downfall of the public education system. It is ridiculous that I would even have to provide this on a science forum, since it is just the basic proof of a derivative. It is used to learn the first lesson in the first year of physics to determine instantaneous velocity of an accelerating body. Do you believe that this process is somehow wrong? If so, it would mean that all of physics is wrong. It is basically the first thing that came about that even started physics in the first place. You just need to take a first year physics or calculus class to learn this.
  12. My guess would be that symmetry breaking is just a fancy word for hitting a physical spacetime paradox. The Higgs mechanism combines all of quantum theory. It is like everything in the theory is all connected together. If you were to try to break the symmetry of this, you would end up hitting a physical paradox. The particles are also related to each other through time. They would be linked together through time. Then it isn't enough to just think about them as waves, but as a particle wave duality interacting through time. I think quantum tunneling could work in the same fashion as quantum jumping. If their waves cancel out in a phase space, then they lose their mass. Their energy would also be undetectable for a brief instance. Then I believe that the wave portion gets rid of the particle in particle wave duality. It is though it no longer exist for a brief instance, until the wave cancellation ends and the particle reemerges. It could mostly be due to the reflection of their waves in phase space that causes them to tunnel. That is the point of view of most of the people I have read on that work in the field in the past. I have read some really convincing arguments that they should be considered as both a particle and a wave, and I think it is nice to be able to fully realize how one of these aspects plays a role on the other. One could say, if you only considered it as being a wave, then your considerations would only be true if they were never observed. The act of observation or experimentation itself forces particles to act more like particles and less like waves. You would only be giving it half justice.
  13. You must have really lucked out if that happened in your linear algebra class.
  14. It was proved by Isaac Newton in the Principia Mathematica. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/principia-mathematica/ He developed calculus, because the mathematics they had before that was unable to complete his work to discover the equations of gravity. My confidence is completely shattered.
  15. I use to go over and over everything I ever learned in theoretical physics all the time to try to make sure that my point of view on it was always correct, so you telling me that I give you this impression all the time just makes your accusations seem completely absurd to me. I had a lot of trouble accepting a lot of things from people that write about theoretical physics that are not completely mainstream, but I had to learn to accept them even though they were unbelievable at times. I figured out that they had to be correct, because there are so many sources that all say the same thing about it. That is difficult when you say I am wrong about things I didn't even say. I think that is how this band wagon got started, so I have so many down votes. Most of the time, it seems like people just had trouble understanding what I had to say. I actually thought that standing my ground and proving my point would change this type of behavior, but I guess I was wrong. I have been purposefully making light of it to change this, but apparently it just feeds people to promote this type of behavior.
  • 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.