Brett Nortje
-
Posts
32 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Brett Nortje
-
-
Atoms are made up of particles. Fundamental particles are not made of atoms. Photons are not made up of atoms and do not contain quarks.
that's the best explanation I have heard... thanks.
0 -
Water is your only problem. You do not need any seeds. Just Google around for Death Valley: apparently there are always a few flowers in spring. But on those rare occasions that there is a bit more rain in spring, it is a bed of flowers. All those seeds were just waiting.
A mountain does not attract rain because of its height, but because of the giant surface it has that can push a cloud up. So, a single pole, of even multiple poles, will not do at thing. Sorry.
okay cool.
0 -
I did model c maths. this was developed in my country south Africa in the eighties or so, and, it taught you to do all the maths in your head without paper, which means that working things out becomes more precise because there are fewer steps to go wrong with. of course, working everything out in your head can also lead to problems!
0 -
Perhaps this video will assuage your fears.
In addition, recently researchers discovered ancestral Amazonian Indians enriched soil by adding charcoal. Maybe coal can be conditioned to cause a similar effect, which would be a good use for coal compared to burning it.
Well, I was thinking faster and cheaper, but if you want to go around digging holes in the ground with coal, which you cannot fly because it is too heavy, then that would work...
But thanks for the video!
0 -
Well, if you were to take the ignition circuit, and redesign it so it is simpler, you got to look at what you want it to do, and in this case, you want it to ignite the engine. So, you need to hook it up to your car lighter. then, you need to push it in and watch the sparks - the power used in the lighter will easily light the engine, yes?
Or, you could hook the key up so that it carries a charge. when you twist it, it could have a 'battery' and send a shock to the engine. don't connect the circuit, simply make the key go between the circuit to connect it, and off you go.
-1 -
I find this very worrying. all the deserts are always getting bigger and consuming more land, and I heard that there are huge areas of burnt trees to act as a barrier to the desert.
I believe that we can reverse the desertification process. if we were to observe how desertification works, it dries all the plants out and then they simply wither and die. well that is how I think it works...
If we were to see though that the biomass is left there, and biomass leads to nutrients I think, then there if we plant a new tree there quickly, we could see it grow anyways, using the dead bio mass in the soil.
Now, if we were to look out into the desert, well, there must be biomass out there too? under the soil I mean. so, why not fly airplanes over the desert dropping seeds. what do we have to loose?
The best way to attract rain to the area is with long pole reaching up into the sky. these attract clouds the way mountains do, so will see them grow.
Of course, if that is too expensive, maybe we could throw bush out there first? this is tough stuff that will grow in the desert.
I hope this doesn't belong in speculation, as it is more like a question.
0 -
For theoretical reasons we think that photons have no mass. Experimentally there are upper bounds on the photon mass. These bounds are very light meaning that massless photons are consistent with what we observe.We do not need mass for particles to interact.
Mass is a particular property of matter like charge you could measure it study it determine it. But energy is not something like that it even doesn't have a precise definition, you could quantify it depending on your definition. As far as I know energy makes sense when you study the transformation rather than as it is.
Well, then, do quarks have mass? being the parts of atoms, and particles are somewhere further up I think, how could quarks have mass, and things they make up don't? please answer me that and I am done, thanks.
0 -
No. Having mass implies having energy, but the reverse is not true. Photons have energy, but they have no mass.
E2 = m2c4 + p2c2
How do you know they have no mass? if they had no mass, they could pass right through everything - like they do - but, to have properties indicates some carbon parts, and that means they have to have a mass, as without a mass, they will not react with anything as they encounter it?
0 -
Isn't it true that if something does not have mass it does not have energy? I always thought so, so let me explain...
If the 'thing' doesn't have mass, it will not be able to react, as mass is in effect stored energy. or what?
0 -
A regular woman usually has two X cromossomes, one of them is inactivated. Why does the Turner's Syndrome and the Klinefelter Syndrome leads to mental retardation? If, apparently, only one X cromossome is necessary, then why is it such a severe condition when you have Turner's Syndrome? Or if someone has 3 X cromossomes, why can't be 2 X cromossomes inactivated?
You could simply breed a disease that eats chromosomes. this would be where you put the chromosomes inside a test tube with something like the cold, then see it will eat those chromosomes, or, something more malicious. then, you can apply it carefully to eat the extra chromosomes, yes?
0 -
No, you should find why your observations are in error using current theory.
No, if it were free you could easily jump into orbit. You would have to hold yourself on the earth, because gravity would not. Also, you would not have to eat, because your body would have free energy. Plants would not need sunlight. Windmills would turn without wind. And, many other totally absurd things.
Could be wrong, as, it is still being put in place.
Free energy would be where you see reactions. when you sling a oscillator together with the other 'pebbles,' it will keep the energy going until it is used up. this technical trick can be replicated in science, I suppose...
0 -
That's a pretty interesting question. [math]2\pi[/math] radians forms a complete revolution in planar angles, and [math]4\pi[/math] steradians do the same in 3-dimensions.
How many steradians comprise the interior solid angles of a cube? Or a dodecahedron?
And is there a general formula for regular polyhedrons as there is for the planar analog?
Why don't you be the first to come up with one? I am sure you know more about this than I do!
0 -
I was trying to think if there is some rule for various 3-D shapes, like the interior angles of a triangle always total 180 degrees and it goes up by 180 for every side you add of a regular polygon, but I was wondering recently if there's some kind of property for 3-D shapes. Obviously 3-D shapes have more than one angle occurring at a single point, but if we have say, a triangular pyramid, is there something about the total radian measure of interior sphere arcs that totals up to like, 2pi radians something like that? From forming spheres.
Like if you have a cube, and you draw spheres with centers at each vertices of each vertex of the cube, all of those spheres will always represent a 1/8 of the total sphere that can be generated from using any of the 3 lines created at the vertices of a cube to create that sphere and thus the total "sphere measure" is a whole sphere since there are 8 vertices in a cube.
Well, if there is a rule you haven't yet heard about cubes and radians and all that other lovely 'stuff,' then let me try!
If you were to observe that the cube has twelve sides, and you want to put a value to each side having a radius equal to the radius of the sphere, then you will see them overlap a lot.
Instead of having them overlap a lot, the typical shape you will get on the outside is a bubble gum shape, or, it will look like four atoms squished together. if that is to be measured, I would suppose there are four areas where the 'cube' or 'bubble gum,' could be measured to make the shape lose some of it's area. actually, you could reverse the angles and find the space that is left outside of your 'shape,' if you know what I mean...
0 -
Hello everybody,
I need help in my project, I am working on Computer vision project, the
project will be implemented, a car would be controlled over a wireless
network, the car will carry a camera to stream a live video to a
computer over the wireless network, what kind of microcontrollers and
wireless modules that I need so I can guarantee the live streaming of
the video, I am using Aurdino board to control the car but I do not
think it will work for the live streaming !
Thank you
I would guess that you need a two way camera and power steering. this means the tiny paddle you are controlling will be able to be maximised so that it will have the power to turn the wheel.
Then, you need to have three levers for the three pedals. using the remotes from a hand controlled helicopter could do the trick - just get them to go up and down instead of whirring around like that!
0 -
Brett, I'm afraid it's more complicated that that, but thanks anyway.
I think it depends on the way the process of translation works.
I think the polypeptyde chains will be those of a mouse, because its DNA was "transcribed" onto the mRNA, but I could be wrong. That's why I'm asking...
Maybe if you observe the health of the thing, or, the natural way the cells in the blood divide of the natural thing?
0 -
If you place a DNA of a mouse, mRNA of a rabbit, ribosomes of a hydra and tRNA of a human in a test tube, and place it in optimal conditions for translation to occur, which imitate the conditions inside cell cytoplasm, you will get a polypeptyde chain of which animal: mouse, rabbit, hydra or human?
Well, it should come down to which is stronger, or, more simple! the simpler a thing is the better it will spread, as, it is less complex, and makes it easier to consume the whole thing into itself, you could say.
Of course the more advanced or intricate things will fall by the way side, as, they are too 'brittle,' and fragile. Maybe the only way you will know for sure is to go and do it!
0 -
Is energy simply a meaningless term that appears at the left side of fundamental physics formulas, or is it actaully a thing or substance, sufficiently malleable that it can be transformed into the recognizable stuff of the universe? Another way to put this--- is energy real?
Yes, energy is real. it bears reactions, and anything that reacts with something else is real, as well as the thing it reacts with. If the energy is used, is it not real? can it not be used? think of how a bit of energy in sugar can be used by you, and, being used, makes it real.
0 -
Hi,
So, I'm no scientist and I may not be the brightest when it comes to those areas. But I had this idea (not sure if it is even possible).
I wondered if it was possible to clear facial pores (blackheads, pimples etc) by inventing a lotion that is mixed with (let's say) iron particles. You put it on your skin, let it sink in and wait until it mixes with the gunk you have stuck in your pores. After that you could run a magnet over your face to extract the dirt mixed with (let's say) iron.
Would that even work our would the person be poisoned by the (let's say) iron? Would it mix with the dead cells/dirt in the pores if it didn't kill you before? Would the magnet pull out both the dirt and the iron or only the iron and leave the dirt behind.
I know it's a funky question but hey, why not ask, right?
Thank you for your consideration and it's totally fine to make fun of me if this question has an obvious answer (that, of course, I don't know about).
you can also clear out the iron in your pores by going into a sauna.
0 -
is it correct to say that during motion of particle a temporary rider particle with dual nature is created while initial permanent particle exhibits particle like nature only ?
By temporary particle i mean a wave packet where energy pumped in during imparting motion to the particle is accumulated,therefore it is not particle in normal sense but has got dual nature.
there needs to be some 'splitting' to make a new particle, so if you want to set something in motion, it will not split unless it comes into contact with the correct things. Motion does not create things, it merely changes things.
0 -
When I read the post above, it screams out, "holy crap, what a load horseshit." I think I'll keep perceiving it that way until some hard evidence is put forth. Good diets are always beneficial, but the only way eating stuff helps your allergies is if you stop eating foods to which you're allergic.
Is it not true that if you take all the things that make insulin, and 'roll' them together, you will have it? All things are natural, and all things come from nature, so, if you ingest all the ingredients listed on your box of pills, you will get the required effect. you are still eating them.
-2 -
some where on this site (I can't remember where) there was a post on allergies being connected to immunization. Can someone help me find that post or give me more info on the topic.
Allergies can be avoided by eating the right stuff. if you eat 'stuff' that kills germs, by dividing red blood cells, you will stop getting allergies, or, they will be put out of harm's way for a while.
If you were to eat food with the natural equivalents of generic medicine, then you could save a lot of money, and avoid your allergies worst effects. You just got to look on your box!
0 -
By the way I have tried to prove Fermat s Last Theorem from Pythagorean theorem.I didn't finish it completely just need more taught just not use such complicated number theory ......
my idea is very simple
I try to find integers which satisfy Pythagorean theorem using general formula the prove that are not perfect square.
what do you say??
There is no such thing as a perfect square. this only exists on computers, and, in application, will never be perfect.
I say this because the square at least does minus from the points of the angles that outline it - imagine an angle that is perfect? to what degree, and, to what size? seeing as how we can go infinitely smaller, in theory, making a perfect square would only be like saying we can se that small, that is as small as it gets, yes?
0 -
Can two photons occupy the same space, as they do not have a mass?
Can a photon affect the spin of an electron, if it is absorbed?
Do photons of different energies or wavelengths affect electrons differently?
Thank you.
No, they cannot occupy the same space, nor will they. they are repulsed by each other, the same as ions. of course, if you were to emit a lot of ions in a small space, then you could force them into the same space? no! they have no mass so will travel, anyway they can, to another point in the universe. photons will have a charge, and that charge will repulse other charges, as they are the same - like with magnetism.
If a photon is absorbed by an electron, it will affect the spin by way of it's charges, as they are different from each other, and, absorbing the same space, could alter the spin, at least...
Yes, if you have a different formula, you will have a different result. how can you take fingerprints and expect them to be the same?
-1 -
I have, on another forum, been trying to theorise my own life form. it goes a little something like this...
Okay, first off you need to know your nano-science. this 'electrical machine,' is going to need more than electricity and parts - it needs bio mass to reproduce. if it was to be very small, we can already do it. if it was to be done on a small scale, and then made bigger slowly, adding particles to the gluons, then they could slowly give it more attributes and functions. no metal or plastics should be used.
In fact, the 'being,' could be a complete living thing. if it were to be given the attributes that will help it breathe and eat, which should be fairly easy, then it will be alive until it gets old and dies, like us.
We would need to take a gluon 'strand,' and then add electrons to be excited and move around the neutrons. then, we have activity. then we need to 'program' it to be - as it doesn't need a brain, just to live at first - to excite the atoms around it to bond with it. then it will grow! This means we have something biological that grows, like an apple, you could say...
But, how do we get it to bond with other atoms? heat is a great 'growth thing,' but we need to make it generate heat from within. this could be done by 'programming,' the gluons to absorb sunlight, like a plant. this could be done by phospholipids being added to the gluon. then we need to make the energy travel from the gluon, to the other particles, and keep moving like a 'bolt' through the air.
This means that we need to add phospholipids to the gluon, and then make them heat up. this could be done by adding positive ions to the gluon, and they will repel each other, making it grow. This will still be very small though. if you were to have them phospholipids growing too, then they will just absorb and heat up, but the gluon might break!
To keep the gluon from breaking, they need to make it self replicating. then, it will grow, being stretched and heated into absorbing new atoms into it. If it were to be heated from the phospholipids, it would grow bigger and bigger, and with the ions on the outsides, they will keep it stretching as if I were on a 'support beam rack thing,' as if it were a plant in the garden. I believe god created plants first? There is your plant, it is just very simple!Continuing where I left off, you need to make it conscious now. I suppose all reactive cells are conscious in their own right, as they react. but, suppose you take a traditional life form and hold a flame close to it? plants won't be able to react directly, but, and seeing as how we at the moment have a plant, we would see them wither and get rid of the dead cells when they burn. this is standard to life, and needs no programming, but, for a dog or whatever it will try to avoid the naked flames. how do we program this into our 'plant?'
If we were to try to create a conscious, it works, according to me, on fear. if the fear were there, it will learn, naturally. so, we need to make our plant fearful, and for that we need, first of all, a nervous system.
I have seen the people that be creating computers that are directly similar to brains, in their structure and working. But, we are not ready to stick our plant with a brain yet.
This means we need a nervous system without a brain, like a jellyfish, but a plant. If it were to be that the nervous system works with the 'plant,' we could of course just stick in something we call a nervous system, and hope it works! that probably won't...
So, we need to start off small. If we have a living cell, we could try to grow a nervous system with it. this could be done by installing or growing a set of cells inside our 'plant' that communicates with the other parts of the cells.
Hell, let's divide our plant into regions? If we were to look at the gluon, that is where the plant needs it's nervous system. then, we need to make it so that it sends sensations from one part to the other.
This means we will need to have a message, for communication, of course. if we were to take the nervous system, in structure, we could use a 'nerve,' and stretch it from one part of the gluon, to the next.
Basically I want it to eat stuff! So, we need it to go from one side of the gluon to the other, 'sensationing' a need to eat. this could be done with heat - it could eat heat?
Now, for it to eat heat, it needs to sense that heat is good. it will sense that heat is good as soon as it starts growing, as, all cells are progressive to the point they want to grow as big as they can - they look at this like it was success, yes?
So, we need to make a nerve that has muscles, to get closer to the heat. this cell could live in your body, but, it would be killed as it is foreign. call this xenophobia!
Taking the cells, and giving them muscles, we could do that. take the gluon, and give it two muscles. this will help the 'thing', as it is no longer a plant, as it has muscles, to use the nerve to illustrate where the heat it, and the two muscles could be set to, once the nerve senses the heat, as all cells respond to heat, to get closer to the heat.
An experiment I call for, is to place the 'thing' in a place where there is a light shining onto it. then, we will see if the nervous system and the muscles get closer to the heat source? basically, that is the beginning of life, to me.The best way to prove that this life is life, is through reproduction. as it is not welcome in our bodies, nor other animals or plants, the best way to make it learn and evolve is in water, as then it has all the things it would need around it.
If we were to give it hormones, they would mate, but, without reproductive organs, it will not reproduce, unless it is through division. this is the most likely thing to do, but, seeing as how it is outside a body that supplies it with oxygen and other fuels, it would need these things in the water. fresh or sea water by the way?
I am guessing fresh water! this means we can make a fish tank and then let it live in there, in the end, when we are finished making this thing.
So, it needs fuel from the light, and that is all the fuel it needs so far. now for the reproduction... this means first it needs fuel to produce offspring and grow.
If you were to observe the cellular feeding of the human body, as we have an organism with a nerve, gluons and muscles, the muscles will eject the new life from it. This means it needs more muscles, but, seeing as how it has no hormones nor reproductive organs, it will not reproduce like that.
I suggest we let it expand, then divide like a cell, parallel to the first cell. this means we can just mos leave it to reproduce under the influence of the light. This means the whole thing has to grow due to the 'light,' that heats it, and then divide when it gets bigger.
So, how do we make it divide? if we were to program the dna to only go as far as... well, does it have dna? I hear it does, so, we can just leave that for someone else to ponder. then we can program it to divide by likening the cell's dna as if it were a white blood cell in our bodies.
I wonder what it is classed as now?0
Help Validating free energy calculation for my methanogeneis reaction
in Ecology and the Environment
Posted
If the pH is supposed to be 5.9, but it is 7, then something is wrong immediately. It is 7, and you want it to be 5.9? how do you change that?
Well, if you were to add hydrogen atoms to it, it would be better? If you were to compress it further, yes, but how do you know where to stop?
I suggest you try to 'fill it right up', then you take 420 of them, and lower them to the minimum concentration, and add all that together, you will have your ratio or whatever of 5.9? How does that sound? [H] is pH without the p, so, take that into consideration.
Okay, so it looks to me like you take your entrophy state, and minus that from the H thing. then you work out the power of the o on top of the equations, and then you got your answer. well, very basically.
Well, if you consider [pCO2] or [HCO3+] you just need to consider which is more important to the 'thing,' being either p in the former equation, or H in the latter equation?
Exergonic is the one you are looking for, as it is associated with free energy, I read on google.
Why don't you go to freenode? this chat server is full of programmers who can help you.