Conjurer

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

My bad, then the answer to the derivative of that would be zero.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You must have really lucked out if that happened in your linear algebra class.

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.

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.

It seems you are looking for someone with a developed long term trauma from talking with you. You have to break their confidence first, before you can trust what they say. You break their confidence at picking everything they say is wrong. Then you would fall under the impression that I am correct, if I allowed my own self confidence to be damage by that. I am forced to always have to change topic, because you and others always start discussing every thing else I mention as being wrong, when using it as a source for the main topic.

So then basically, it is just because I already haven't talked to you that much? I haven't allowed you to beat me down into submission. Unification may have to deal with finding hidden variables or things that have not been mathematically described in physics. That is something that hasn't been mathematically described in physics. Therefore, that could be a source of finding hidden variables.

I don't understand how my descriptions always provide this type of interpretation. I keep falling into a logical fallacy of thinking this type of information means someone else does that can explain it to me. I don't understand why you are always this way. In dynamical system theory, a phase space is a space in which all possible states of a system are represented, with each possible state corresponding to one unique point in the phase space. For mechanical systems, the phase space usually consists of all possible values of position and momentum variables. The concept of phase space was developed in the late 19th century by Ludwig Boltzmann, Henri Poincaré, and Josiah Willard Gibbs.[1]

I don't have a license to access technical manuals. It was in the technical manual of a radar developed in the 60's or earlier for the US Navy, which was out of commission. Back then, they provided more of the full theory of how they were developed originally for the military. That was the one section it claimed to be unable to go into the theory of operation about it, and that was the reason it gave. These days something like that would only provide the bar minimal amount of information needed to diagnose it. It is not something you would see anymore. It worked, so the theory was accepted without a description. I hold an associates in electronics and a bachelors in education.

I did a little research on it a while back on the internet. Basically, it can be used to consider closed loop interactions in a circuit to determine how to get rid of interference. It also can provide an alternative theory to quantum mechanics, which is supposed to be just as accurate. That is what sold me on it being capable of possibly finding a better description of QFT to find hidden variables. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space It is used in radar antenna theory. The antenna is connected to a waveguide that is a multiple of a wavelength of electromagnetic waves and a half wavelength of the electromagnetic waves. Then the electrons being sent out of it are able to know what path to go down before they could even know which one is a half wave or full wave. At a spooky action at a distance, FTL, they choose to always travel down the full wave guide. Then only signals that have reflected at a half wave can be received by the radar, and they can be sent down the same tube without frying the receiver by giving it too much energy. It is like they have to occupy a phase space of a full wave. The particles themselves cannot actually look ahead of where they are going and make decisions, unless God is always riding behind the wheel of them...

In this case, the photons combine to form a heavier particle. They are not going to break into a lighter particle. This fact doesn't change my mind about it. It could support that the fermion anti fermion pair consist of photons. After this combination, they adopt the trait of having a real antiparticle. That is a trait they didn't have before. Then you can combine a fermion and anti fermion to create photons, or release their constituents. What other circumstance does this occur? They don't know what causes a quantum jump or how to predict when they occur. That is what I mean by quantum jumps. I think that it would have to be described as a phase space to explain it, because that is the only scientific theory I think comes close enough to describing this type of interaction. It could be related to the same underlying principal that governs particle precognition with an action at a distance. That was never able to be explained by Einstein. The electron could choose orbitals before it is even able to know what wavelengths it would require to fill that orbital.