Jump to content

yammers

Members
  • Posts

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by yammers

  1. What...There is no way to reach the speed of light, or beyond it. Time never slows down for you, only for others in your perspective. In your frame of reference, your always going at a 'normal' steady pace, and everyone else's is different. Say your in a train and its going at a constant speed. Say its night, you can't see anything else other than a train going the opposite direction to you. You wouldn't know if it was going past you or you going past it, the situations are equivalent in your frame of reference, but not say in someones whose outside and watching both trains. Basically, in your frame, you are always stationary and everything else is moving around you. Since your velocity is zero, time would not slow down. I have a feeling this post may have a few interesting philosophical bits that you may find interesting. Think about it.

     

    Nice Ragib! That's why it's called relativity.

     

    I think relativity confuses people...It begins to sound like magic, instead of common sense.

    Here are some questions to answer:

    Can light exist without the passage of time?

    Can time exist without the movement of light?

    Which is faster?

    You might be able to slow time, but you can never go back!

  2. Then what is infinity-infinity?

     

    I think the best way to think of infinity is Zero, because numbers are in a way, bound to rules and have limits. Numbers may seem to go on forever, but in a finite manner. Zero on the other hand is infinitely nothing.

     

    Eternity will not end, it will just have a different alias.

  3. I would like to present something interesting for contemplation. The term center of gravity is a mathematical concept that makes dealing with the gravity between objects easier. But if one looks at the center of gravity of say a sphere, the gravity force vectors will all cancel, such that the center of gravity has no net gravitational force.

     

    I don't think "center of gravity" is the right term for this, since it refers to the concentration and distribution of mass; where what you want to discuss, (which I'm sure is related to CG) is the gravity factory? of a mass.

     

    I think you're right, but this should only be true in deep space where there was no other gravity, because a mass like the moon (or sun) must have an effect on the exact position of the equal gravity core. With that said, I'm not sure that this core would actually be in the very middle (center); with the moon orbiting, this core may be continuously changing it's position...???

  4. I meant cylinder' date=' not cone.

     

    Yes, that is a spiral. But what I mentioned before (not in my main question though), was completely different from a spiral.

     

    Never mind anyways, I don't need to know how to figure the length of a spiral anymore.[/quote']

     

    Dr. Zimski, I assume that you either know the answer to your original question, or you don't care anymore...In what ever case, you did ask an interesting question that is still waiting to be solved by a credible source, and verified. I only offered suggestions in hopes of stimulating the discussion further, and because I thought I might know, but I too am waiting for verification.

     

    Does anyone else know? Cosine have you worked it out?

  5. If you were to draw a curve on a paper tube that "rose" at an even rate, it should, if you unwrap it, end up looking like a right triangle if you unwrap one section.

     

    OK, now, if you were to draw a curve on a paper funnel (like the ones at gas stations) that "rose" ever increasing (spiral), it should, if you unwrap it, end up looking like a right triangle if you unwrap one section.

     

    I have been going by this definition, perhaps it's wrong for the purpose of this discussion:

    Spiral- 1. a plane curve formed by a point moving around a fixed central point in a continuosly increasing or decreasing arc. Gage Canadian Dictionary

     

    I am more and more convinced that this would work out...But maybe I'm missing something.;)

  6. Yeah, that, what you were talking about was a coil. To figure out a coil is just like a triangle: hypotenuse^2 = (h^2) + [pi(d)]^2, where the hyp. is the length of the coil, h is the hieght of the coil, and [pi(d)'] is the circumference.

     

    Couldn’t one use your method, but instead of simply measuring the diameter of the circle, take the average of the spirals? Assuming that the spiral starts at 0 degrees, and ends at 360 degrees; like calculating the average diameter of a cone, only with the spiral you’d factor in the number of spirals instead of just each end. By factoring in the number of revolutions, the curve should be accounted for. No?

    As I stated before, I’m not a math guy…Just a hack, hacking away, so go easy on me… ;)

  7. Good points gcol... I like how you say, "present state of knowledge"...Isn't that the truth? It seems clear to me that our ability to learn has been limited by "what we know". This conundrum won't be solved until someone arrogant enough reworks the entire problem, starting with revising the Laws of Physics...It will bring new meaning to "think outside the box".

    What happened before the big bang may be the missing piece of the puzzle...with all due respect Mr. Hawking

  8. If one had mass and attempted to reach C, this would be impossible, since mass would increase to infinity and would therefore require more energy to achieve than is in the universe. To travel at C, one would need to become pure energy. Even the smallest quanta of energy can travel at C. To go faster than C is currently considered impossible. Like matter, energy has a speed limit, which in this case is C. As such, to go faster than C would require that energy would need to change into something else. We do not know yet what this something else is or could be, and based on what we do know, C is the current universe speed record.

     

     

    Isn't there some evidence that photons have mass? albeit minute...

  9. What is the lowest level of consciousness possible?

     

    Not that I would discredit any of the arguments in the above posts, but to sort of answer the original question, the lowest level of consciousness is a GCS of 4 out of 15. It is called the Glasgow Coma Score, and it is used in emergency medicine as a rough guide to determining "Level of Consciousness", and an associated brain injury. The score is determined from responses by a patient in eye (sight) response (4), verbal (hearing) response(5), and motor (touch) response(6). Various levels of consciousness will produce different scores; brain dead would be 1+1+1=3 or no response + no response +no response and the opposite being as you are reading this post your eyes are open, you can carry on conversation, and you can type text on command, or 4, 5, 6=15. So, a gcs of 4, which I believe is only possible in this format 1+1+2, would be the lowest level of consciousness.

     

    From my point of view, this seems pretty good...Perhaps one could introduce taste and smell to fine tune the higher end of the score.

     

    Is there more to consciousness than this? Maybe... but then again, maybe not!

  10. I'm no math guy, but I think this looks logical...

     

    Well it might be wrong, but it was fun trying.

     

    Please forgive me if otherwise, but I'll assume that your spiral was a perfect coil with the radius beginning at 0 degrees and spiralling down through-out 3 spirals and ending at 360 degrees. Now, when you look straight down on this, it will appear as a circle O (Let's say 2 ft dia.) . When you view it from the side it should look like a zig zag (not the paper kind) and let's say 3' tall; connect the dots.

     

    oiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

    oiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

    oiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

    oiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

     

    So, I figure you'd used Pythagorus Theorum (AA + BB = CC), but you'd use the circ instead of the horizontal length x 2 of a complete 360.

     

     

    (Total height / 3 spirals) squared + (dia x pie) squared = 360 length squared

     

    3/3 sq + 6.28 sq = lgth sq

     

    1 + 39.44 = 40.44

     

    6.36' per 360 degrees

     

    Total length of a spiral 2'wide x 3' tall with 3 complete 360's should be = 19.08'

     

    I don't know...maybe...

  11. Hi AnarktTearia, I'm not a math guy, but since no-one else has anwsered your problem I'll take a jab at it.

     

    30% of 4 gallons is 1.2 gallons of alcohol, and 2.8 gallons of the (other). Since you'll be using 100% alcohol to increase the solution to 30% from 20%, you know that the 2.8 gallons of (other) is all that will be used; since the initial solution is 20% alc, then the 2.8 is 80%; the solution is 2.8/ 80% = 3.5 gallons of 20%. The rest (.50 gal) would be alcohol.

  12. Let's take a more basic approach.

     

    Consciousness - 1. aware; knowing: conscious of a sharp pain. 2. capable of thought...

     

    It seems to me that awareness is nothing more than sensory feedback. Would one be aware if there was no light, sound, smells or touch?

     

    The first answer would probably be yes, because we are capable of thought, but thought itself seems to be built on experiences of our senses.

     

    With that said, is consciousness simply continuos response to stimulus; for example, the post that will follow this one. Simply a reaction to a stimuli. We all like to think that we are making the choices, and perhaps we are; but what caused the choice you chose?

     

    Funny that this thread is in the Speculations Forum.

×
×
  • 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.