Daedalus

The civil rights movement paved the way for many african-americans to become great teachers, scientists, and inventors who have had a tremendous impact on the world: African-American Inventors Just to name a few... Also, I.Q. is not the only factor which determines whether or not a person will be beneficial. A lot can be said towards determination / motivation and endurance: Is Genius Born or Can It Be Learned? Genius is very beneficial for memory retention and figuring things out, but if a person is lazy it is absolutely worthless. So not only would you have to create a world where you weed out undesirable genes, but you might also have to create a Totalitarian society and pose harsh penalties to control your world of geniuses. That is just one extreme. But when you begin to control the most basic of freedoms inherent to the population, it's only a matter of time before you begin to take away other freedoms to force your agenda upon society. As history has shown us, it's only a matter of time before the population will revolt and your regime will fall. And will you make special considerations for beautiful women or looks in general (speaking as a man)? I'm not saying beautiful poeople are dumb, but there are a lot of handsome men and gorgeous women out there who may not make the cut. It is my opinion that intelligence, motivation, and endurance are things that are also learned. The stereo-type of the goergous dumb blonde, isn't neccessarily due to her having a low I.Q. A lot can be said of what society imposes on gender and even though she might be very smart, she chose a path through life which allowed her to be pampered and admired by men because of her beauty. Therefore she didn't have to use her intelligence to be successful and paid very little attention to aquiring knowledge.

Besides learning the language and the things listed by other people in this thread, it can be very beneficial to learn as much math that you can. A lot of software written is based on concepts that are exploited from Algebra, Trigonometry, Calculus, and Numerical Analysis, to name a few. Even though you can find a lot of third party APIs and SDKs which wrap up a lot of these types of maths into easy to use packages, a lot can be said for mastering mathematics and applying it to develop software (especially if you intend to create games, art programs, accounting systems, and most other types of software).

Yeah I like them too. Benice, I was wondering did you develop the software for your spirographs or just create animations? Because there might be a market for children and some adults to generate spirographs on their computer. Afterall, a lot of my friends had spirographs when I was a kid and it might actually be something that would be fun / safe for them to create on a computer (safe in that it doesn't incorperate violence and other things that parents worry about when buying games / software for kids).

1.) You would need to expose the stone to antimatter until every atom and subatomic particle is annihilated. 2.) Yes... but it would not be cost effective or practicle to create the amount of antimatter needed (see antimatter weapon). 3.) We will have to develop better techniques for creating antimatter which is not in the near future.

What would be the benefit of living inside a black hole for a type III advanced civilization? Sure, one could argue that they could take advantage of some form of energy stored / produced within the black hole. But, wouldn't this type of civilization be able to take advantage of the black hole without living inside it? Instead, wouldn't it be better to spread to other galaxies?

Schrödinger's hat has definitely listed some great alternatives to Mathematica. You can also use the following link to view most of these programs along with licensing costs. I'm not sure how up-to-date the pricing is, but it should give you a general idea : ) http://en.wikipedia....algebra_systems That would be awesome!!!

Hmmm... you may be on to something considering the logic of those Vulcans. After all what better place to hide from us Earthlings....

My sons and I have Aspergers. This means that we have difficulties with social interaction, we have a hard time with speech and grammar, we can be extremely clumsy (I'm always banging my knees / shins into something while my youngest son likes to swing his arms around usually knocking stuff over), and we tend towards repetitive patterns with a huge focus / attention to specific functions. This condition is thought to be genetic and can exhibit behaviour which is not always linked with someone who is smart / intelligent. Some people with Aspergers can seem to be completely weird and out of place in society. My oldest son and I focus primarily on numbers. We don't really know why. We just love anything that has to do with numbers and math. He can tell me exactly how many road signs, bridges, or on / off ramps we have passed whether I wanted to know it or not. But, he is also only eight years old. The problem with this Eugenics, is that Aspergers can manifest any range of behaviours and interests and my sons and I probably would not exist today if Eugenics was enforced. I'm not sure what percentage of people with Aspergers develop a focus on numbers. But considering that we can be socially awkward, have a hard time with speech / grammar, and be clumsy at times, our genes would most likely be targeted along with people who suffer from Autism. You have to realize that people who have genetic disorders are not entirely destructive to society. Throughout my life I have managed to solve very complex mathematical equations: Continued Summations of [math]x^p[/math]: I solved this equation when I was in the 11th grade in high school. The following is a generalized equation which produces the polynomials that predict the Sth summation of [math]x^p[/math] from 1 to [math]n[/math], where [math]p[/math] is any natural number not including zero: [math]F(S,\, n,\, p)=\sum_{j_{1}=1}^n \sum_{j_{2}=1}^{j_{1}} ... \sum_{x=1}^{j_{S}} (x^p)=\sum_{j=0}^p \left((-1)^{j+p} \left(\sum_{k=0}^j \frac{k^p \, \left \langle -j \right \rangle_{j-k}}{(j-k)!}\right)\left(\frac{\left \langle n \right \rangle_{j+s}}{(j+s)!} \right)\right)[/math] Newton's Interpolation Formula: My Calculus teacher, Mrs. Gilje, introduced me to Dr. Eli Eliason at the University of Oklahoma after I showed her the above equation. After explaining the process I used to solve the problem and showing him the equation below, he informed me that the following equation was discovered by Newton and is called Newton's interpolation formula (note: I have expanded the formula to include recursively summing the sequence such that when [math]s=0[/math] we get the original sequence and when [math]s=1[/math] we get the first summation of the sequence and so on): [math]F(x, \, s,\, n) = \sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\left( \sum_{j=0}^{i}\left(f(j)\frac{(-1)^{j}\ i!}{j!\ (i-j)!}\right) \frac{(-1)^{s}}{(i+s)!} \prod_{k=1}^{i+s}\left(k-s-x\right)\right)[/math] Daedalus' Exponential Interpolation: I seen other patterns in the above equations and developed an exponential interpolation equation just four months after I discovered the equations above: [math]F(x, \, p,\, n) = \prod_{i=0}^{n-1}\left( \prod_{j=0}^{i}\left(f(j)^{\frac{(-1)^{j}\, i!}{j!\, (i-j)!}}\right)^{ \frac{(-1)^{p}}{(i+p)!} \displaystyle \prod_{k=1}^{i+p}\left(k-p-x\right)}\right)[/math] Where [math]x[/math] is the variable, [math]p[/math] is the recursion level of the product as explained above, and we multiply the outputs from [math]0[/math] to [math]n-1[/math]. We can start from any number by modifying [math]f(j)[/math] to include a starting index, [math]f(j+start)[/math]. I have solved many more equations, but whether or not these equations were previously known is not the point. I'm not a genius by any means. Aspergers actually gives me and my son my son and I a desire to work on numbers that can seem to be unnatural at times. I have literally sat at my desk for 36 hours straight trying to solve a math problem and pass out due to exhaustion. That isn't entirely the result of Aspergers as I also have a few other disorders lol. I consider us lucky to have a focus on numbers and not something like drawing with crayons. But just because we can be socially awkward, have a hard time with speech and grammar, and clumsy (all of which is a result of a genetic disorder, Aspergers), does not give you the right to sterilize me or to have denied my parents the right to have conceived me.

That's a really neat type of spirograph you have constructed : )

I agree. But as you have suggested... if you can't get past dimensional analysis, how can you ever expect to go beyond that and make predictions as to the nature of the universe. I've got to take my kids back to their mom's house, but I will be back later : )

I realize that Klaynos, but I was trying to show him how I used dimensional analysis in my own speculatory theory to validate a statement I have made as to get my point across. He has not done this and continues to dismiss the logic based on pure mathematics that we use in Physics to analyze our assumptions. I am hoping that he sees what I have done and rethinks the statements he has made and understand why his equation is flawed.

Let me demonstrate what Klaynos is stating by dimensional analysis. My theory of Temporal Uniformity defines motion as: [math]speed=freq \times \frac{meters}{cycles}[/math] and [math]accel=freq^2 \times \frac{meters}{cycles^2}[/math] You can see that the above definitions are not standard. What this means is that a clock provides the cycles (i.e. the cycles of a pendulum, a rotating mechanism, etc...), meters represent the distance that has been traversed, and frequency is used to convert cycles to seconds. This is needed because a cycle is not a defined unit of measurement. A cycle can last for any length of duration and can represent any unit that is used to measure oscillation. Now let's see if my statement for motion can be validated using dimensional analysis. Frequency is defined by cycles per second or: [math]freq=\frac{cycles}{second}[/math] Such that: [math]speed = freq \times \frac{meters}{cycles} = \frac{cycles}{second} \times \frac{meters}{cycles}=\frac{meters}{second} [/math] and [math]accel= freq^2 \times \frac{meters}{cycles^2} = \frac{cycles^2}{second^2} \times \frac{meters}{cycles^2}=\frac{meters}{second^2} [/math] Therefore I can define time in seconds as: [math]time=\frac{cycles}{frequency}=\frac{\frac{cycles}{1}}{\frac{cycles}{second}}=\frac{cycles \times second}{cycles}=second[/math] That is how I used dimensional analysis to validate my statement and you need to make sure your statements are based on the same mathematical logic that I have used in this demonstration. Which you have not done and is why Klaynos, and everyone else, is pointing out flaws in your theory.

Unfortunately, it is hard to understand what you are trying to say. The incorrect use of certain terminology does not aid in explaining your ideas regardless of how creative you believe you have used the words. Instead, it creates confusion on behalf of the reader when trying to relate what is already known vs. the ideas you are trying to portray. Ultimately, it hurts your theory and casts doubt on your abilities as a scientist. How are we suppose to take you seriously when you cannot even use scientific terminology in accordance with the definitions for such terms? I am not putting you or your theory down. I am just informing you that to be taken serious, it is imperative that you use terminology according to the definitions of such words and that you educate yourself on the consensus view of such ideas you are trying to explain in your theory. That way you will be able to properly explain your theory and show why your theory is better than the accepted theory. This also involves developing mathematics to support the definitions in your theory because the accepted theory most certainly has mathematics from which we can make predictions. Also as everyone has been telling you, logic does not guarentee that your theory is correct. To give an example of this, thousands of years ago people thought the Earth was flat. At the time, this assumption seemed very logical to most everyone. However, the use of mathematics was employed to show the Earth was indeed round. Thus, over time, changed the consensus that the Earth was flat. http://en.wikipedia....Spherical_Earth

I'm glad we can be of some help : )

I think the official explanation has the most merit. Especially since it is from the same group of scientists who took the footage in the first place. I've created video surveillance software for Cyberview Systems Inc. that also does background subtraction to process object recognition and tracking. Even though the software performed background subtraction on a frame by frame basis at 30 fps, the artifacts mentioned by the article you posted are still part of this process. The techniques used to perform this type of image / video analysis must account for these type of artifacts to successfully identify and track objects regardless of the overall lighting within the scene. I used Intel's performance primitives along with OpenCV to create the software. You can read up on this type of image / video processing at the following links: http://www.flong.com...ays/essay_cvad/ http://download.intel.com/technology/itj/2005/volume09issue02/art02_computer_vision/vol09_art02.pdf http://en.wikipedia....Computer_vision and many more by searching Google for "Computer Vision": Google - Computer Vision

I'm not sure you realize that analog refers to continuous values of a physical quantity. The difference is that digital refers to discrete values of a physical quantity. A good analogy for this is an analog clock that uses hands vs. a digital clock that uses a digital display. The second hand of an analog clock sweeps through all possible values for seconds, including partial seconds. A digital clock only displays discrete values of seconds and requires a higher resolution to show partial seconds such as milliseconds. This higher resolution is still digital in that it can only display discrete values of milliseconds or whatever the resolution provides. Resolution in this case refers to the granularity of the clock and its ability to divide time into smaller units, not to be confused with the resolution of the display which defines the display's ability to render finer details. Definition for Analog: Definition for Digital: The point of all of this is to show you that the terminology refers to a physical quantity / value. Hence, your statement is false because quantities are represented by measurements which are mathematical by nature. This is why scientific theories include mathematics which make predictions about the values of such quantities given some type of event that can either change or leave the quantity unaffected. Also, your theory states that these U1 particles are the basic building blocks of the universe. Since you have a particle that is a discrete unit that everything else is based upon, you in fact have a digital universe.

I realize that people can distort facts, evidence, and just straight out lie to make a point that would convince most people who are not trained to take objective stances on materials they are presented. That is why I said that I am not sure if I completely agree with everything the documentary stated. However, I made a point to state that it was an interesting view on the events of 9-11. Whether or not any of what was said has merit or scientific basis is another argument altogether.

As Schrodinger's hat stated, it is an image that I created by plotting the equations in Mathematica. I then attached the image to the post. I have Mathematica version 5.2 but the newer version includes anti-aliasing which produces smoother looking curves.

I just got done watching "Loose Change 9-11" on NetFlix. This documentary covers a lot of the stuff talked about in this thread. Not sure I completely agree with everything, but it was an interesting view on the events of 9-11. Perhaps you guys should watch it.

Hmm.... Pantheory it looks like we might be able to also count on hypervalent_iodine to participate as well. She is definitely well qualified to either participate or help conduct / design the experiments .

Awe... I see. Well then, I guess it won't hurt to show everyone how to find the solution for the sake of anyone else who needs help solving this type of problem : ) As stated before, the equation for the path of a body considering uniform acceleration, initial velocity and initial position is as follows: [math]y=\frac{1}{2}\, a \, t^2 + v_0 \, t + y_0[/math] The acceleration provided by gravity is [math]-9.8 \ m / s^2[/math], the stated initial velocity is [math]39.2 \ m / s[/math], and the second ball is thrown [math]4 \, s[/math] after the first ball. Since the problem didn't specify an initial position, we can safely assume that both balls are thrown from the same height and you can zero out the [math]y_0[/math] variable giving us the equation for the first ball as follows: [math]y=\left(-4.9 \ m/s^2\right) \, t^2 + \left(39.2 \ m / s\right) \, t[/math] The second ball is thrown four seconds later. The means that we must modify the equation for the second ball such that by the time four seconds have past, the second ball has started following the path of the first ball. This means the we must subtract four seconds from the time variable in the equation for the second ball. This may seem counterintuitive. But we can see that by subtracting four seconds from the time variable for the second ball, we will have placed the second ball at the starting position of the first ball: The first ball has been in flight for four seconds. The second ball starts at the same position as the first ball four second later. Such that [math]t - 4\, s[/math] will offset the time for the second ball and place it at the position the first ball was located at (i.e. Starting time for ball2 in relation to ball1 is [math]4\, s-4\, s = 0 \, s[/math]). This gives us the equation for the path of the second ball in relation to the first ball: [math]y=\left(-4.9 \ m/s^2\right) \, (t - 4 \, s)^2 + \left(39.2 \ m / s\right) \, (t - 4 \, s)[/math] The problem states that we need to find the position where both balls meet. Because we now know the equations for the path of both balls, all we have to do is determine where both paths return the same height. This is solved by setting the equations equal to each other which yields: [math]\left(-4.9 \ m/s^2\right) \, t^2 + \left(39.2 \ m / s\right) \, t = \left(-4.9 \ m/s^2\right) \, (t - 4 \, s)^2 + \left(39.2 \ m / s\right) \, (t - 4 \, s)[/math] The first thing we need to do is expand the right hand side. I am going to assume the reader knows how to expand the term, [math]\left(-4.9 \ m/s^2\right) \, (t - 4 \, s)^2[/math], using the FOIL method and how to distribute the specified constants. [math]\left(-4.9 \ m/s^2\right) \, t^2 + \left(39.2 \ m / s\right) \, t = \left(-4.9 \ m/s^2\right) \, t^2 + \left(78.4 \ m / s\right) \, t - \left(235.2 \, m\right)[/math] Next, we will add [math]\left(4.9 \ m/s^2\right) \, t^2[/math] to both sides: [math]\left(39.2 \ m / s\right) \, t = \left(78.4 \ m / s\right) \, t - \left(235.2 \, m\right)[/math] Then, we will subtract [math]\left(78.4 \ m / s\right) \, t[/math] from both sides: [math]\left(-39.2 \ m / s\right) \, t = \left(-235.2 \, m\right)[/math] Finally, we will divide both sides by [math]\left(-39.2 \ m / s\right)[/math]: [math]t = \frac{-235.2 \, m}{-39.2 \ m / s}=6.0 \, s[/math] Now that we know the time that both balls will meet, we can plug this result back into our equation for the first ball and solve for the height that the collision took place: [math]y=\left(-4.9 \ m/s^2\right) \, (6.0 \, s)^2 + \left(39.2 \ m / s\right) \, (6.0 \, s)=58.8\, m[/math] Check the answer with the equation for the path of the second ball: [math]y=\left(-4.9 \ m/s^2\right) \, (6.0 \, s - 4 \, s)^2 + \left(39.2 \ m / s\right) \, (6.0 \, s - 4 \, s)=58.8\, m[/math] We can see that this is the correct solution and further validate our result by graphing it out: We can also generalize the process for solving this type of problem. Because gravity will always be [math]-9.8\ m/s^2[/math] when solving these type of basic physics problems, we do not have to worry about using the quadratic formula to find both solutions because the term, [math]\left(-9.8 \ m/s^2\right)\, t^2[/math], will always cancel out. This allows us to yield the following formula for these types of problems: The equation for the path of the first body: [math]y=\frac{1}{2}\, a \, (t-t_1)^2 + v_1 \, (t-t_1) + y_1[/math] The equation for the path of the second body: [math]y=\frac{1}{2}\, a \, (t-t_2)^2 + v_2 \, (t-t_2) + y_2[/math] Such that: [math]\frac{1}{2}\, a \, (t-t_1)^2 + v_1 \, (t-t_1) + y_1 = \frac{1}{2}\, a \, (t-t_2)^2 + v_2 \, (t-t_2) + y_2[/math] Yields the following generalization: [math]t=\frac{a\, \left(t_1^2 - t_2^2\right)-2\, \left(t_1 \, v_1 - t_2\, v_2\right)+2\, \left(y_1-y_2\right)}{2\, a\, \left(t_1 - t_2\right) -2\, \left( v_1 - v_2\right)} [/math]

I believe it was a coincidental correlation that they observed in the data after-the-fact: The above statement suggests that they at least plan to investigate the correlation in future studies.

Sometimes it is helpful to visualize the problem before attempting to solve it. I have created the following graph so that you can see the mechanics of both balls in relation to height and time: Once you have solved for the time that the two balls will meet, you can plug that value into one of the equations to obtain the answer you need. Also, it is always a good habit to validate your answer by checking both equations to see if they produce the same results. I have purposely erased the units as to not give away the answer.