EdEarl

curiousone, why does the word philosophy disturb you?

Rather than try to define science, my comment about it is, "The result of science is a library written by an army of curious, competitive, contentious people trying to understand the universe and its phenomena, i.e., nature. They all seek to convince everyone else their view of the nature is best, but only a few get the glory."

Read about the Buddha and Buddhism to learn how teachings of a man who does not claim to be a deity can become the foundation for religion; its long history of evolution is documented. Study the life of John Smith and the Mormon church; although, its history is short in comparison. You might look at Scientology, which has a very short. One might compare Hinduism, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and related groups to see the results of religious evolution; IDK how much of its history has been recorded. Of course, Christian history and its evolution have been recorded. Seems to me there are case histories for evolution of religion that are relevant to the discussion.

Reflection about Nazis should include an understanding that such events repeat because people tend to go along, rather than make waves, especially with an authority figure in the lead. There are more recent examples, including Jonestown and Jim Jones; fortunately, Jonestown didn't involve millions.

Opening some threads here remind me of being a child stepping through our church door, some remind me of reading One Flew over the Cockatoo's Nest, some are like school or university, some are like a bar fight, and a few are like a party of drunks arguing politics or other trivia.

Are you using visible to mean detectible, or visible as being able to see visible light that is red shifted, because red shift can make any wave length EMF, even gamma rays shift below visible light (i.e., C-10^-googleplex); thus, making it impossible to see (i.e., not visible).

That is an interesting question.

I believe at extra SOL light would still be visible (because C is a constant*) but the redshift would increase. There would be no invisibility. But I may be wrong on this.

I am thinking that extra SOL is being called physically impossible, so the question is moot.

 

----------------------

(edit)

*I mean C is the constant of Speed Of Light (in void), which means it cannot go faster, it cannot go slower, it cannot change of direction just like that: it is C. Point.

As speed approaches C, redshift of visible light becomes infra-red, then microwaves, then long waves, and at epsilon from C the wavelength approaches infinity and requires a ridiculously large antenna to receive. However, none of these waves are visible light.

This is wrong.

Observer A who is "at rest" observes the other one (observer B) traveling at almost SOL, and for the one who is "at rest" it looks like the time of the traveling one is slowing down. For the one who travels (B) nothing changes, his own time does not slow down. And in the unphysical event where B is traveling faster than light the traveler would not observe his own time going backwards nor he would observe reverse entropy. Backwards time would be observed by the other one (A) who is "at rest". And symmetrically, the one traveling (B) may believe he is the one "at rest" and that the other one (A) is in fact traveling.

"Logic" is peculiar sometimes. For example, "logic" would say that heavy objects sink in water and that a light objects float. That is not the case.

So I believe that "logic" is a kind of extract of the physical world. It is a way to explain, it is not the reason why things happen.

Agree. Except, observers would see nothing as speed approaches SOL because red shift would make them invisible, and at extra SOL light waves could never reach an observer. This exercise in logic of the absurd suggests logic and time are not "connected."

Interesting,does your answer hinge on the close (identical?) connection between our thought processes and "logic" ?

 

My lazy assumption that logic might be "free standing" may have led me to overlook an obvious connection between time and logic ?

IDK mathematical rigor, but logic is reasoning about things and processes in space time. I wouldn't say logic and time are identical.

I think the strongest evidence against time running backward is that time slows down as ones speed gets closer and closer to the speed of light, which implies that time stands still for things going the speed of light. Hence, if something could go faster than the speed of light, time might run backward. However, nothing can move faster than the speed of light.

Entropy increases, with local temporary exceptions, which requires time to increase.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time)

Since we live in a four dimensional world, x,y,z and time, we are constrained to therein, which is why our thought processes and logic are ordered by time, IMO.

Snow! It hasn't snowed here since IIRC 1985. It's a nice spring day here, except its January. I'll let you work with direct.dude; I'm impatient.

Where is DC defined as a two wire system?

See Externet's comments, post#7

Further a supply is only alternating if it changes polarity.

The point is that the OP specified 'switching' between two negative supplies. Each negative supply must have a reference.return wire so that makes 3 or 4 wires.

Since there is no polarity change, it is simply DC pulsed from one level to another.

 

 

Good morning Ed,

Where is DC defined as a two wire system?

 

Thank you direct dude, for your diagrams.

They do not indicate polarity or wiring so I am still left guessing.

If you combine the two supplies to form a two wire system then you will end up with zero if the two supplies have the same voltage.

OK, it is literally defined as a "Direct current (DC) is the unidirectional flow of electric charge." (Wikipedia)

To achieve such a flow one needs an EMF source, such as a battery, with a + and - end, which one can connect with a single wire to each end and cause a short circuit. Otherwise, you must have two wires to connect to a load, such as a light bulb or motor. That different sources, e.g., +15, -15, +6, etc., can share a common ground doesn't change the fact that each source has a + and -; the flow of each one requires two wires to connect to a load.

Direct.Dude's diagram showed a square wave, unlabeled, with words that said one phase changes from negative to positive (AC because current direction changes as EMF changes from negative to positive), and second square wave changing from positive to negative (also AC).

If the square waves did not change polarity, the Fourier analysis of the wave form would be a DC EMF plus various AC harmonics added to the DC. Thus, while the definition of DC allows varying DC, such signals are a combination of AC harmonics and a constant DC EMF. This analysis is necessary to understand how transformers affect 60Hz square waves, according to the OP, quoted below. IIRC transformers work best for one frequency of sine wave, and less well for other frequencies. Since a square wave contains many frequencies, it is distorted by a transformer, which means energy is lost heating the transformer.

I'm not sure if I invented the word or the form, but why dont we use it already. 2 phase dc is basically something with 1 positive and 2 negative and has 2 phases (of course), 1 phase from negative 1 to positive and another from negative 2 to positive, which it switches quickly, preferrably at 60hz. It can easily be transformed with transformers and changed to true DC by connecting the two negatives together. Also unlike AC it is always in its true potential. If someone already invented it, can I know the name?

Thanks!

-The Direct Dude

"Why bother?"

I am a big fan of DC, thats why

"Please draw a proper diagram to show what you mean"

DC is defined as a two wire system with one plus and one minus. Your diagram shows the voltage changing from plus to minus and minus to plus, which means it is an AC system, except a square wave instead of a sine wave. Square waves are very inefficient when put through a transformer, with output no longer being a true square wave and the transformer heat up as a result.

Yes and no.

 

You can copyright the document itself, meaning that no one should just copy it for themselves, but this does not protect the ideas within that document. It would not force anyone to cite the work, indeed even in published scientific works attributions are not always correct.

 

If one has some technology or a product then one could seek a patent.

I should have mentioned that a copyright does not protect an idea, which is the purpose of a patent. On the other hand, patents are expensive, and copyrights are not. If one does not advertise their copyright, the probability of it being read is small and that secrecy gives protection. On the other hand, if the idea has commercial value, one should get a patent.

For a small fee you can register a copyright with the Library of Congress. Whatever you write becomes public because anyone can request a document or copy of a document, including yours, but the probability of it being read is low. However, it establishes a date for your idea and assures you get credit.

It is difficult to understand how other cultures can be so different and still produce stable humans...

People are survivors, including children. Protecting children is part or our DNA, a good thing, which sometimes mean we overprotect. It's not a reason to beat ourselves up. Sooner or later our children tell us when to stop. I think parenting is similar in all cultures, especially when children have internet access.

Even abused children can become good adults; learning a culture should not be as traumatic or difficult.

 

Oh Ed, I never considered that angle with breastfeeding before. Making something seem uncomfortable because there's now an alternative is classic brand marketing strategy. It's worked to sell many products, but also gave us some of our weirdest taboos.

My mistake there are no anti-breast-feeding laws on the books.

..., but it also clearly describes nursing, breast feeding, a baby.

 

So is nursing a baby sexual? It certainly can be described that way. Is it a physical relationship between an adult and a baby/child? Yes. So should it be publicly banned? Many people think so.

 

While doctors, nurses, and hospitals all over the country are trying to get women to start breastfeeding again, legislators all over the country are trying to pass laws to ban public nursing of babies. Women have actually been arrested for feeding their babies, because this natural act embarrassed someone. I wonder if the women also ended up on some sex offenders list because of their lewd behavior. I wonder how many porn stars are on sex offenders lists because of their lewd behavior? Oh! I forgot. Porn stars are not breaking laws, just nursing mothers are breaking laws.

People funny. Before formula was mass marketed and sold as "better than mom's milk, mother or nursemaid fed babies, sometimes in public, which might be why there are existing anti-brest-feeding laws on the books. It should be moms choice, and those opposed need to get their minds out of the gutter. A mom feeding her baby is not going to destroy our culture.

For god's sakes, why is this such a difficult question to answer?!

To me it is a complex issue, and I don't think I am alone. At the moment, I believe politicians who deny climate change are either delusional or liars. People they influence to believe climate change is not occurring are also delusional, but they would think I am delusional. Who is right, and who decides? Trying to live a good life requires complex decisions, with appealing sound bytes trying to win sway people to some position. Trying to understand which sound byte is reasonable is not always clear.

I think rational behavior is the antitheses of delusional behavior. I don't know how to answer your question.

I think many, perhaps most people, live with some delusions or mistaken ideas, and at the same time have some realistic ideas.

To diagnose someone as delusional, doctors should consider whether the person might be harmful to themselves or others. It is, however, a subjective assessment and mistakes will occur. The law waits until someone commits a crime, perhaps diagnosing someone as delusional should await their doing something illegal or clearly irrational and at least potentially dangerous.

We can only hope that we have done well rearing our children, and when they see something illegal or immoral they will be alright. Sometimes we have no control.

I imagined driving with my family by a city park in which exhibitionists are coupling, and my kids seeing it. What would I do to assure my kids were not distressed. I'm not in any way promoting any exhibitionism. But, one never knows what they or their family may see, and one must deal with it.

I think child beauty pageants are bizarre (see pic below) because children are made up as sexual objects.

I do not believe I was adversely affected by seeing dogs copulate when I was very young, and my mother explaining they were making puppies.

I'm not in favor of sex acts in streets and other public venues. However, I don't understand how children seeing such acts would necessarily cause adverse affects. I think the way we act about sex can leave our children distressed about sex or OK about sex, and I think we should strive to rear our children with healthy attitudes about sex.

Many animals have breeding contests to determine which ones (usually male) get to mate, and some of those contests end in death of one or both contestants. If humans did it publicly, I suspect jealousy would lead to fights, in which the jealous one bashes his opponent in the head with a rock or somehow interrupt coitus. Privacy is safer; thus, we made it immoral.

Is it unethical? IDK

I'd think one could know many, many people and find none perfect. You didn't actually say, but the question implies a perfect spouse. I think it is a figment of ones lust that makes us conclude a person would be a perfect spouse, because a large portion of marriages end in divorce. Marriages that last inevitably result in some conversations that end in fights. Thus, IMO there is no one perfect, we just do the best we can. However, knowing this does not mean you wont fall in lust and think you have found the perfect person.

Rapid City SD was founded in 1876, and had previously been called Hay Camp. Gold had been found nearby in the black hills, which residents of Hay Camp intended to exploit. I can find no population statistics for Hay Camp in 1876, but the founders of Rapid City laid out a square mile and proclaimed the central six blocks to be the business district. Some might call Hay Camp a village, and changing its name to Rapid City didn't change its status to city. Today it has about 68,000 people and some might call that a town.

Except for running the risk of offending citizens of Rapid City, one might call it a village, town or city and not violate any rules and regulations AFAIK. IIRC townships were at one time laid out on a square mile and were so established by state law. SD was not a state until 1889.