keelanz

you seem to be answering your own question?

computer science is the way to go, you need to get some serious experience in networking, OS's & programming, university's dont do much with the first 2 unless its a specific course and programming is very vast from binary to higher level code (basically everything that the PC can process) Logic & mathematics covers the theoretical aspects of computer engineering & physics, chemistry & nano technology cover the practical elements, essentially all of it is to one extent or another number manipulation you would definitely have to specify professionally but as a hobby it wouldnt take too long to actually create a small IC and get it to start executing code, the problem is our processors nowadays use cutting edge technology, realistically you could only create a very poor machine. here's a quick A-Z Physical computation (physics, chemistry, nano technology) Theoretical Computation (maths & logic) Networking (protocols, numbering systems) Programming (thousands of languages) Software analysis (systems) Website design & creation (for use on the web, hybrid of networking/programming/databases ) Games creation (lots geometry, maths & physics) Media studies (media technology, HCI, animation) Databases (data constructs and relation) Operating systems (linux/windows & apple(kernal, API's,file systems etc)) The Hack Lab (exploits, flashing, malicious software etc) Robotics (physical computation relation) Artificial intelligence (theoretical computation & philosophy) ieee Standard's (and you dont know so http://en.wikipedia....rds_Association) good luck luckily if you like playing god, most of it is very interesting

linux doesnt have fences or walls so it doesnt need windows or gates

your attempting a pretty much impossible task without a good cause but hey lol, before you even go into clock cycles and multi threading all you really need is a half decent PC hooked up to a server bank (pref fible optics) then run your pc virtually of the server, thats pretty much the best solution for building the powerfulest machine without having to build IC & switch's & firmware in between. good luck if your goal is to play movies and burn disks p4 3.0 with 1gb RAM 160 gb HD and radeon HD 3450 will do ya, whatever you save on the PC spend on a 42" HD TV and a small surround sound and you'll have a home cinema in HD, buy a blue ray player and maybe some more RAM, just giving you a feel to be honest id get a ps3 and a decent tv if your going for movies, whatever you save from making the super computer use to make a decent PC and go linux to optimise the PC's potential, go dual boot with windows 7 for media and familiarity but get ubuntu or any user friendly distro & thats probably the best you can get with your money

im interested in a good website design page to get a few tips too

energy has many context's, how can anybody define it as one thing? if it can be defined as one thing then it must be something, if it is something then something that is nothing must not be energy. 100 years ago IC's didnt exist, they do now, somewhere in the last 100 years a form of energy was created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy im playing on words but the concept is simple, energy is a form of Anything energy has lots of beautiful forms, lots of anything is certainly something, if its not our time or place to define E it doesnt matter given that we can distinguish between something and nothing E is defined for us. Anything is (or can be a form of) Energy, something that is nothing (absolute 0) lacks Anything and something must be anything to be a form of energy. im fairly safe to think that to create energy you simply create something that didnt before exist and in my own thinking (although philosophical as it might be) an idea isnt enough for creation of energy alone, the creation of anything must materialize from an idea to physical existence for it to be actually defined as energy i like the questioners name, Solve. Q: how to create energy? A: create something that doesnt exist (its easy when you know how) why? =D someone must have for you to tell me i cant in my own defense im not stupid enough to actually believe im creating something physical from something non physical, im using something physical(materials) & something physical(human brain) to create something that otherwise wouldnt exist in the physical world yes people im saying turning clay into a plate or a tree into a book is ENERGY <3 u swansont for the luls (berty kills it) how come i cant reply on philosophy forums, i get this code #103133 <3

the big crunch is its name our universe is already infinite your just looking at it from the wrong scale, we still havent magnified our own existence to any limit other than practical, so if we had the tools there would be more to discover and thats looking in, if you look out and presume there are other universes we have no idea what our universe could be part of and how infinite that scale is, all we know is our own reality and some of the laws which dictate it things like big bang/big crunch & big planet/small universe are perceptual concepts which if you like could be called infinite space

HaHa id get started on ps2 Mother boards right now then

I should think that would depend on the definition of energy. Heres my analogy: to create an IC (integrated circuit) we must necessarily have metal to manipulate into tracks and transistors to manipulate the throughput (changing the energy) but to create or discover the logical manipulation is the actual creation of energy because you have physically created something that didnt before hand exist (essentially creating a new system), this takes the same approach as pragmatism whereby we progress from past experience and try to take into account our own experience and then build on and create thing's that wouldnt otherwise exist (without the progression of past knowledge) in other words im defining energy as a logical system and everything in existence must already be logical of the system, however if you were to manipulate that logic to create or build upon logic that already exist's then you are creating what could be defined as new energy (new logic), this is actually quite simple in practice...inventors and scientist's have been leading developers in the creation of new energy since the dawn of time......Music artists, actors, religions .... they all progress energy, create new systems of thought or systems of constraint or whatever systems they would like to create (ooooh like numbering systems) i define logic as energy because it would be the simplest deduction we could make, 1's & 0's are transferable within the logic manipulation so the relativity of energy could be simplified (this is too say that electricity would have a more complex numbering array than sound but both will be true of the system and that system comes down to true or false) i think you'll probably find there is almost no exclusiveness in the definition of the energies, if energies are phenomenologies of physical change it would assert that mostly all energies are relative (exist because of each other rather than exclusively) So to conclude if we define all energies in a logical sense then to create energy you simply manipulate the already existing logic to something that doesnt yet exist, sound was defined because it was needed for the definition of electricity or heat, heat is defined because it is needed for the definition of electricity etc etc, the further you go up the tree the less relative the branches become but still hold fundamental relationships, so to create energy you simply pick a branch, examine the fractals of the leaf and create your own, or you could do as i do and go for the tree trunk and roots

man....cant is the cancer of wont, any practicalities just need to be figured out, cooling really is not the issue.

more gravity, further away from the sun? what stationary in physics? what

light is 1 dimensional, thats probably all that matters 3d tv's piss me off, if 2d can give the illusion of 3d which make 4d's what difference does it make if the illusion works but is ultimately an illusion? 3d tv's piss me off, if 2d can give the illusion of 3d which make 4d's what difference does it make if the illusion works but is ultimately an illusion?

so conclusions...? e=mc^2?

cooling in space is a LOL i hear it gets chilly in winter up in space

im not sure it matters, speed combined with weight create a force and that force is an illusion of weight (think relativity) i think einstein was defining mass as some form of existence rather than giving mass any finite definition it doesnt matter what context you place e=mc^2 because its functionality is the same, get E from M....... if you take e=mc^2 away from any current systems it wouldnt matter how you define M anyway "Something must exist for people, something so austere, so lofty, so sacrosanct that it would make profaning it unthinkable" theres all sorts of questions for this equation that im sure only einstein himself understood, im sure you guys can help me on my way a little though for example why square the number? im sure finding the smallest thing we can measure and timesing it by the speed of light is the most your gona get out of that tiny mass, what made einstein think it could possibly add itself to itself its own amount of times (after it has already become light), heres another question why is he timesing at all? why isnt it its mass divided by light? the bigger mass is still going to be bigger energy just within much smaller parameters. its not like we have to be super specific with the amount of energy unless we have a cause, also if its mc then automatically it would be m/c after mc......what goes up must come down, like if (e=mc^2) then (m=sqrt(e/c)) you know? counter balance of equations or something? ALSO why doesnt it account for relativity of E's, E isnt one thing its many amazing things such as light, heat, magnetism, electricity and most forms of movement etc why is E defined as only including one of these E's? it may be the fastest but it probably isnt the power-fullest or most useful form of E to use at all. opinions? Personally i just think its all relative ALL of it, all energy's are linked, mass is linked, they all need each other or interact and change each other, things like energy, time and mass cant exist without each other, thats to say energy cant be defined without a huge list of variables which come from a few fundamental forces or laws? whatever you define 3 dimensions, time, mass, energy & gravity as i suppose like somehow these forces or laws are one another. This is how i think of it, it would be pretty much impossible to create a useful equation for E right now, but we could create one with basic laws and watch it grow

apparently einstien in all his genius has mixed them as he didnt define what the m stood for in terms of relativistic mass or rest mass, he uses m interchangeably? i think perhaps einsiten was defining m as something as anything such that it must necessarily exist and in some system be accountable to that existence (this essentially means mass is matter but accountable to the specific system ) below is a cross breed of physics/philosophy (for now use a logical circuit board or physical existence as our system, everything within existence needs a system for its existence so theres plenty of them if you start thinking. E.G computer games only come into existence when theres a computer game system in place...rahhh?) i would like your feedback on the analogy i originally gave, i deal alot in computers so i believe that anything can be logical of its own system. Which means anything within that system is automatically true of that system (im dealing with logical manipulation right now but its true of maths, language and science etc). I believe "imagining" the equation bring's more truth to it and by taking the "pragmatic" approach it wont be too long anyway.........

i just thought time was change, pretty much transferable to energy in a way such that it causes change (and energy limits any perception of the use of time(SOL)) your squarks have roots(not squared) but only the same as our own P.S <3 u swanson

this is (probably) your mathematical version of something as anything(?)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom so to create energy you simply (probably) create(discover) a nonexistent system i dont believe e=mc^2 so i think ill sit on my own side of the fence

Einstein is a moron, every genius has to be until the next one comes along and shows you why.(relativity is a beautifully complex idea, but e=mc^2 is not) Based upon an already existent system anything can be true, but only of that system.

Nice, add an engine in their and we will all be flying soon?

.............really http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiz-BwT5wZU&feature=player_embedded#at=225

simplest way i could define it would be that if time is what happens when change occurs(and calculable to it), then its relative to that change gravity is the fundamental force of change (other than the big bang) our planet and conditions are set at an almost constant rate which makes our time systems and lifespan nothing but appropriate to us therefore towards the outer reaches of the universe (any drastic change in forces) time would run slower but perceived as the same (you could live 3 times as long with 3 times less force but you wouldnt know it, its just relative) in other words when a mass is torn between two forces (or that force is weak) what we define as time would be almost non existent & when we have lots of forces all acting upon each other we have array of change and hence the speeding up of time are you saying that time is relative to the potential force of gravity? like being calculable to it? well you contradicted yourself straight away "But those two people are stationary","What probably happens is because they are at different positions on the Earth, when the Earth rotates" also "suspended in space in a free fall"

oh yes i know this, but i dont believe e=mc2 deals with this? it has no mathematical function or equation that includes any other forms of energy just SOL, i have GCSE level background in physics but surely it is as simple as i purposed above? i have a very good mathematical background if that helps? =D (you can probably see why i enjoyed the switch from numbers with no purpose to the building blocks of our existence) c^2 = c squared? because im used to that notation being logical based what i really wanted to know, even though i greatly appreciate your comment (and corrections), is weather einstein saw pure energy as a huge release of light from its original mass? and weather my analogy is in some way accurate to what einstein himself imaged when creating this equation.</div> pleaseeeeeeee lol

This is my first post so i hope its in the right place (im new to this site) and im interesting in understand or standingover the foundations of physics, most physical equations can be proven within the realms of our testing apparatus but for me the very nature of this equation seems deceptive so i would appreciate your feedback okay so Einstein's proposal was as follows E = Energy (the fundamental force for & of our physical existence(a physical form of change( time is needed and for([x=12],[y=112.7],[z=1pp])....you get the picture))) M = Mass (Existence as our approximate mass relative to the specific weighing system but not fallacious of it) C = Constant (The speed of light, being the fastest or largest physical force in existence(a constant change so to speak)) 2 = squaring that number(adding a value to itself its valued amount of times(second level of perceptual inflation whereby 1squared adds a zero, 1 cubed adds another zero and so on until we trick computers into letting us use pi)) okay so now we know exactly what were putting into to the equation lets test it. we have two pieces of corn weighing 100g each. 100g x 299,792,458 m/s = 29,979,245,800 s/d x 29,979,245,800 s/d = ....asln (g = grams) (m/s = miles per second) (s/d = super dupers) (asln = a stupidly large number) 29,979,245,800 adding itself 100 times, then 29,979,245,800 values of itself(weeeeeeeeeee) I believe the best analogy i can give is that einsteins picture of energy in its purest form is a corn popping .... however the variables would be slightly different, so for example the size of a piece of corn that pops would be turned into to say an atom turning into our planet and this probably isnt suffice due to the speed of light nothing would exist after we used the energy (other than the already present vacuum?) but the parameters of the energy are defined as the the maximum output in any of the 3 dimensions relative to this equation. please correct(aid my development) the above before we discuss the below so what is it you might say that is wrong with this equation that looks as though (if we can for a minute) its the big bang in mathematical terms i have lots more to say about the whole E in this equation but i would appreciate other peoples opinions on my description of the theory before i venture on.