Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    England / Wales
  • Interests
    Computers, philosophy, confusing myself, games, football, killing brain cells.........
  • College Major/Degree
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Computing, Biochemistry, Neurology, Numbers
  • Biography
    Master of nothing, nothing is my Master.

Recent Profile Visitors

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

DevilSolution's Achievements


Molecule (6/13)



  1. I would like to know peoples opinions on how the human race will evolve with technology. Given the fact robots are replacing large quantities of human jobs in almost every sector of idustry at an alarming rate, what is the future of human productivity? It is presumed when technology replaces manpower that humans on average benefit, which thus far has proved true given the advancements in the agricultural and industrial sectors, allowing for cheaper foods and general goods / modern necessities. However can this curve continue? For every job a robot replaces a new job must be created to fill the gap, not only do all replaced jobs need replacing with something new but also the exponential growth of humanity also requires an unprecedented amount of currently unknown jobs to be created. Essentially will technology cause a future pandemic in terms of jobs?
  2. Perhaps to expand slightly, if a machine could find relative catalysts and then use them with other reactions using simulations of the properties currently known, Then we could permute extensively the chain of reactions. I understand what you mean with curveball, any misinterpretation or lack of current understanding could lead to false results, but surely given out current knowledge and computational capabilities we could cover alot of ground? Just in terms of predicting physical properties etc
  3. Why bother joining such an "unsound" thread then?? If you read the OP i specifically question where to draw the line, in further posts i express how you can quite easily have one foot in one foot out. However you decide to......talk about youtube as a non-educational tool which obviously only "non-scientists" use. what are you trying to achieve because honestly you've given no opinion on the OP or any latter correspondence other than your very broad statement regarding numerology and scientists and scientists and youtube. curtail call?
  4. Shame on them, youtube has lots of great scientific outlets..... also its broad statement to say serious scientists reject numerology. If you read my earlier posts i reject most of the spiel that comes from numerology but it doesn't mean you cant be a mathematician and have a foot in numerology. As for scientific papers i think more will be posted today than i could get through in a lifetime, thats the speed technology and science moves, also you have to pay to get hold of some of the most recent or cutting edge papers which unfortunately not everyone can afford. Time and money ..... time and money.
  5. 360 - 90 270 - With an x-y-z Big bang expansion Time is the other 90 degree's which makes a full circle and thus, time is the cycling of a circle.
  6. Electromagetic Radiation covers the electromagnetic spectrum for all waves, light, microwaves, infrared, ultraviolet etc all travel at the SOL (speed of light). Other than sound and gravity im not sure what else has wave form, other than electrons in QM. Here's a link to better explain it than me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation you can create your own waveforms ofcourse and things like the harmonic series. I just assumed you were referring to EM waves.
  7. That was obviously not the point i was trying to make, simply stating youtube doesnt mean that its all crack-pottery. But by some peoples accounts...... and i didn't mention that any of those institutions had anything regarding numerology ...... so why would i link something ive made no claim to? hmmm
  8. It's irrelevant to the equation, in a computer simulation it would be a requisite.
  9. the whole of edX, MiT, stanford, ted talks, khan acad etc are on youtube why would you wince? The wiki page is vague and brief, youtube videos are real people expressing themselves and their views. Completely off topic aswell.....
  10. i just put touch screen on the arduino and built my own gui from that. Did you get to drive it?
  11. He means if something like earth was growing in size, while we were travelling in a spaceship back to earth the distance will shorten.
  12. Are you basing your presumptions on the single equation d = vt because im fairly sure neither Newton or Einstein discovered it, thats a simple equation for a moving object. I don't know a great deal about either of their mathematics but im fairly sure you'll find that they have an equation that accounts for size, have you checked? If not im sure we can draw one up??
  13. No size is a dimension within x,y,z. space-time is used in Eisenstein theories time is used in newtons You want to add size as function of time in a differential, but that doesn't make size a dimension, it makes it variable. Also if the plane is getting bigger and he is getting smaller your missing the fact that one or both of these objects are moving, which still makes the basic equation true.
  14. axioms have been proven false also. Numerology obviously isn't mathematics or atleast some of it, but there are aspects which have drawn directly from specific patterns etc The logical premise that say the fib seq was created by god because it appears so often in nature is flawed but only to the extent that we dont know why these laws or patterns exist and may never.
  • 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.