Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Endy0816

  1. I did state the frequency range, it begins in infrared at 140thz and ends at 980thz, green is 560thz and is its median. It scales up or down maintaining a 1 to 7 proportion, simple math. Like the relationship of shell number to principle quantum number, you failed to hear me. I have a thought experiment for all you naysayers which is firmly grounded in reality which will address Swansont's question. On a rainy day the clouds part and a ray of sunlight shines through the falling water. Lo, nature has dispersed its own light. I see the rim of the light cone, an arc. Hold your ruler to the sky, do you see the 7 colors? Are they not equally spaced? They are. Look closer, I see another rainbow behind it, the sun's light is periodic. Divide a pie into equal parts, turn it on its side. Do the slices now look unequally spaced? They do. So it is with the difference in vantage points of the straight line spectrum's interference pattern and illusion of distance to the reality of distance in the interference pattern of the arc of the rainbow. When viewed from above the arc looks like a straight line, move orthogonally to either side and lo, it is an arc. A prism changes the orientation of light therefore the vantage point of the observer, as if looking from above. A rainbow is a natural spectrum observed head on. The light cone is properly perceived by the eye because the retinal cones interpret the signal like the continual stacking of ice cream cones. Knowledge begins with the simple observation of natural phenomenon, clues, to the secrets of nature.

    Absolute nonsense? Think again. Closing this thread would be as foolish as burning the witch at the stake. Everytime I give a scientific answer it is disregarded and another attack is initiated because the terminology is not understood. The idea that this topic is not even worth speculation is an insult to the scientific community. Behold the conversations that have arisen already. We mock what we do not understand.



    Stop dramatizing. You are being asked to obey forum rules not on trial.



    You seem to have latched onto the number 7 and multiplied an arbitrary frequency by it.


    If you have something more than that, then present it. Otherwise there is really nothing to discuss and no reason this thread needs to stay open.

  2. Without a temporal dimension you'd lack the ability to observe events.




    Likening the universe to a frozen tangle of threads is essentially the block universe concept, but it requires the assumptions that both past and future are real, as well as the assumption that time is real/physical and can be measured. Part of the latter assumption requires the assumption that clocks measure this property called "time", even though this cannot be demonstrated.


    Further, in a universe where the worldlines of objects are like frozen threads i.e. static and unmoving, there would be no relative motion, without some other mechanism to explain it, which in itself would require a further assumption.


    We can drop all of those assumptions, however, and investigate the concept of time and the idea that clocks measure this property called "time" and realise that nowhere in the process of a clock is something called "time" ever actually measured. In an atomic clock, for example, what is actually measured is the microwave emissions from the electrons of a caseium-133 atom, say; these emissions are measured and counted and this count is used as a standardised unit of comparison. Nowhere is a secondary, physical property, or dimension, measured.



    It would only appear frozen from a 5th dimensional view.


    Difficult to explain properly but you can't observe an object having a temporal distance of 5 seconds, because you yourself are using time to observe.


    In theory you could pull it off, but only via sacrificing one of your spacial dimensions or somehow gaining an extra dimension. In either case you still have one dimension you can't traverse freely.

  3. We only ever observe objects in the present moment (not to be confused with "the present moment in time"), in what we term as "now". The trajectory of an object represents past states, or locations, which no longer exist, as well as possibly representing future states of the object. When an observation is made, it can only made in the present moment - we can't observe "the past" we can only observe the present.


    That's not to say that "past" observations were never real, they were, but they have ceased to be real. So the trajectory of an object, moving with respect to the observer, represents configurations of the object which are no longer real ("past" configurations) and configurations which are not yet real ("future" configurations).


    The object is not extended in time, as it is extended in space, it exists only in the now, the present moment.Objects, therefore, do not have a temporal dimension, it is our memory of "past" states and imaginings of "future" states, which lead us to believe that they do. But those memories and imaginings are not physically real, they are mental constructs.



    You are assuming that we are incapable of observing the past due to its non-existance.


    We could just be incapable of observing the past instead.



    Universe can be likened to a frozen tangle of threads. We only see our particular slice. What we term the present is the unreal construct.

  4. Leedskalnin built Coral Castle.


    It is a cool site, but I think Leedskalnin was just using the quasi-mystical construction angle to promote his attraction.


    He had a fair number of neighbors, I find it difficult to believe nobody witnessed construction/reconstruction. Only thing really inexplicable is the perfectly balanced stone gate.

  5. You are attempting to shift the burden there...



    Only DNA is known to produce DNA.



    This can be proven false by the Retrovirus, which can transcribe RNA to DNA. One commonly known retrovirus is HIV, you may have heard of it.



    To answer your original question, the odds are good. Start simple, increase complexity while producing enough entropy to keep thermodynamics happy. Entirely within the rules as we understand them.

  6. Just to clarify, the locust designation is given to grasshopper species that swarm.


    In nature, it is excessive tactile stimulation of their hind-legs(due to overcrowding), that causes the transformation via increased serotonin levels.


    I generally see evolution as working via a simpler if inexact methodology as compared to a more complex and precise human solution.


    If I had to guess I would say that the swarming behavior evolved from something more mundane. Considering the range of grasshopper species the trait occurs across, it is probably ancestral.

  7. they harnessed the power of the earth, just like tesla, the pyramid was basicly the same as tesla's wardenclyffe tower.



    Tesla used conventional generators...



    There are more straightforward ways they could have used hydro power without involving electricity.


    Grinding, irrigation, hydraulic pressure


    much more plausible than lighting. Plenty of blind painters out there.

  8. Can we chemically modify the water to be less detrimental to equipment? or that what already happens?


    I only ask because with nuclear power on the rise (a new one being announced here recently) and nuclear waste a clear cut future problem as well as fracking, why are we not investing more resources into technology such as this?



    Essentially correct. Typically the water used to produce steam is freshwater. Minimizes corrosion potential and salt buildup. Seawater is used for cooling the steam back down.




    You want to maximize Temperature Hot and minimize Temperature Cold to get as close to maximum efficiency as possible.


    Can't recall how steam power stacks up in terms of efficiency. I recall looking at it at one point and not being particularly impressed.


    It is also nominally thermally polluting the ocean when you dump heat there. Lot of ocean available but one could make a case out of it.

  9. I got warned once for answering a persons question with a metaphor that told the answer to his question...



    As the Man wakes to the Sun, so too does the Sun wake to the Man.


    Metaphors can be thought provoking, but you are likely better off here sticking to more understandable communication.

  10. Control could be done via a mind-machine interface. Would reduce the number of sensors needed by the suit as well as give the user the option to change its properties at will.


    Probably some sort of nano-tech for the fabric.


    For power I would probably just claim ambient or avoid mentioning it altogether. If you really want biologic, swiping energy from the blood stream would be more efficient than tapping the brain. Most of us have a good bit extra to give that would otherwise end up as waste or fat.

  11. I think as long as there is causal trail backwards, from point A to B, then the moment was real even without a living observer.


    Our observation of the present is the sum total of everything that has happened in the past.


    There are events that could end up out of reach, unknowable. When spacial expansion outpaces light speed, or if there is a "period" of nonlinear time. Tricky things to try and discuss :/


    Endy - which one? 'Surfaces and Essences' or 'GEB - An Eternal Golden Braid'. I can honestly say that the reading of GEB for the first time will be an experience I will never forget; it felt that my brain was changing, making room for new stuff and ways of thought, and would never be the same again - I am pretty sure that over 20 years later I am a distinctly different person because of it.


    GEB - An Eternal Golden Braid


    Fully agree. Borrowed it from a roommate and was up all night reading it. I can truly say I felt transcendent afterward.

  13. history is written by those who conquer.... even if the egyptians did harness power, the greeks, romans wouldn't acknowledge it for what it was, and i'm pretty sure the egyptians wouldn't share it.They made the pyramids too perfect for anything else, not even a razor blade could fit through the seams, and no mummy's have ever been found in these so called tombs. They have hieroglyphs of light bulbs with wire attached, the position of the pyramid is in too much of a perfect position to say it is coincidence, and the materials used are used in the perfect way in which to harness the earth's power and turn it into electricity.



    So these Greek tourists would have been using soot producing lamps to explore the Great Pyramid.


    From your statement here we can conclude this:



    No soot has been found in any of the tombs or pyramids



    is mistaken. As can be verified by the numerous pictures of soot inside the Great Pyramid.



    There was at least a sarcophagus left inside the Great Pyramid. The mummy was probably looted in the past. We have used old bones as relics, medicine, and pigment(aptly named mummy brown). Would be a greater surprise if there was a mummy still inside of what had to be the most obvious target for ancient tomb raiders.


    Piezoelectric refers to generating electricity via mechanical stress. This alone should give you reason to reconsider that source's validity.



    The "light bulb" is thought to represent a snake spawned within a lotus flower.


    To even my untrained eye close up it looks considerably more like a snake than a filament.





    Before you go off believing whatever some random crank website/video tells you look it up first. Save yourself all kinds of grief.


    By that I mean is there at least one longest line, of length N metres (however large) that can be traversed in a constant direction without passing the same point more than once.



    You are assuming that the line itself can't expand.


    Imagine walking down a 5 kilometer road and someone drops in an extra kilometer on you. At your end point you've gone 6 km without ever traversing the same point twice.



    In the hypothetical external view, there is probably nothing to see. The Universe either has no external surface area or no mass-energy has reached you.

  • 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.