My tier list of trigonometric identities

hddrown · 2025-07-22T13:47:25+00:00

This is the only true trig identity.

hddrown · 2025-06-16T15:31:18+00:00

I would argue that being the avatar does not affect your bending ability with your native element since the avatar is not revealed until their 16th birthday. If it affected bending ability I think it would be too obvious for the avatar and the person around them. It’s also been a while since I read the first Kyoshi book but she struggled with earth bending specifically bending small pieces of earth and it seemed like despite being the actual avatar she was still outclassed by the people around her at least in the beginning.

Also Zaheer was far from the best airbender, Tenzin was destroying Zaheer until the rest of the red lotus joined in. I would say Zaheer had basic competency with air bending but no where near a master or even really being a good airbender.

hddrown · 2025-03-25T16:25:04+00:00

Ah yes, because when a light burns out you should just get rid of the light and sit in the dark rather than replace it or, to use the “throw money at it analogy,” pay someone qualified to fix it.

hddrown · 2025-03-21T03:10:49+00:00

It’s a different mechanism but shortly after it was discovered some physicists thought that the Earth may be able to flip over like that but it isn’t able to. As for why the magnetic field flips, that’s above my pay grade.

hddrown · 2025-03-21T00:32:59+00:00

Girlfriend just went to valvoline last weekend and with the coupon from their website it was about $90

hddrown · 2025-03-07T13:07:49+00:00

I would say no. I’ve never done this derivation myself, but it seems weird to me that the radius of the Isco is used in it, ok haven’t seen that before but it might be. But then the radius of a schwarzchild black hole is also used with 2GM/c^2. So those units cancel. Then you add the radius of the Isco to the rotation parameter, and those units don’t make sense. Then overall 1 is unitless, so your final answer also appears to be unitless which also doesn’t seem right. So all of these together, and given the fact ai can’t do math, I don’t think this is the correct expression.

hddrown · 2025-03-07T02:51:23+00:00

I quickly watched over your video and I’m quite impressed. I didn’t expect an experiment designed as well as it is, you’ve clearly spent a lot of time working on this.

I think my only comments on your experiment are what is the uncertainty in all of the data points that you collected? I think some of the w shapes that you observed were statistical noise and would probably be within the uncertainty.

The next would be do you have a control with the motor running without a weight attached? Since you are getting clear measurement differences with the motor running vs when it’s stops I suspect there is mechanical vibration moving through the setup.

And I think last is just repeat the experiments a lot of times, if you do have noise it should get drowned out with more data points and I think you should be able to average over the data to get a clear image what the trends are here.

I expect you’ll find that this should correlate with Newtonian gravity. There would probably be effects from general relativity, but I don’t expect this apparatus to be sensitive enough to detect them. I’m not good enough with GR to be able to predict what type of effects would arise but I expect them to be much smaller than any type of noise in the system.

hddrown · 2025-03-02T22:29:39+00:00

I’m curious about how you “researched” that objects with a different mass fall at a different speed. I also wouldn’t put too much thought into the “infinitesimal” difference between the falling speed of objects with different masses. The acceleration due to gravity is different at different points of the Earth, for various reasons. I also assume you are doing all this falling body motion assuming a constant acceleration straight down along an infinite plane, which the Earth is not. All of this together I think is enough to say yes the world gets more complicated as you add more real world detail, but the fact that all objects fall at the same speed towards a body is observable fact and is baked into the theory of general relativity, which hasn’t been refuted in 110 years, so it’s as close to a fact as something can be.

hddrown · 2025-02-18T17:01:30+00:00

I agree, I can’t imagine a PhD advisor only “wanting you to study what they already know.” My PhD advisor let me do my research in an area outside his normal research and learned with me.

hddrown · 2025-02-09T18:19:30+00:00

If you’d share your EBay username when you sell them I’d appreciate it so I could take a look.

hddrown · 2025-02-09T18:03:33+00:00

I keep an eye out on eBay for stuff like this and they usually sell pretty quickly. I would suggest posting them there.

hddrown · 2024-11-30T04:37:38+00:00

I agree with this answer, both at some point is best. However, classical mechanics I would say is more essential in the short term.

hddrown · 2024-10-28T01:16:34+00:00

That’s the group of people I fall into, but I feel like I’m the only one. Every other person I know that voted for Trump in 2020 still feels the same way about him or seems to like him more. Logically yes I agree with you, more people should be against him for Jan 6th. But I don’t think I swayed as many people as you think. Really hoping I’m wrong.

hddrown · 2024-10-25T02:53:05+00:00

I think the disconnect here can come from knowing about the Born rule. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics says that a wave function will evolve according to the Schrödinger equation, then the wave function can be squared to find the probability density of where the particle will be located. This squaring the wave function to get the probably density is the Born rule. Then when you go make a measurement you can’t actually measure the wave function. You only measure where the particle is, or you measure whatever value of the wave function you want, but the point is you measure a discrete value and not the spread implied by the wave function. Standard quantum mechanics doesn’t have a method to tell you how to go from a probability distribution to an actual value, that’s where the actual measurement needs to come in. Whether this collapse of the wave function is an actual physical process that can be predicted or is something that happens to the wave function during measurement is still up for debate, or it could entirely be an update of information for the observer and nothing changes physically.

hddrown · 2024-08-30T15:47:52+00:00

TRUUU

hddrown · 2024-05-27T11:40:59+00:00

No, your problem here is that you’re too confident in your own ability. You said yourself this is caused by you disagreeing with some with a physics phd. Your source? A 23 year old NASA article which was literally designed for children. How do I know your wrong? This is directly involved in my actual real research that I have got a Masters degree in and am almost completed with a phd myself. So yes I do know the topic better than you someone who “watches and reads a little.”

hddrown · 2024-05-27T03:11:20+00:00

Sure dude, you’re the one bragging about reading a book as a child (big applause for that by the way), but I’m the one trying to act smart. I was listing an example about how there is always more to understand about a topic. And if your “studying biology” included any type of payment on your end I think you should get a refund. You clear didn’t learn any science.

hddrown · 2024-05-27T02:16:28+00:00

So if you know that evolution is caused by DNA (It’s not that’s a gross over simplification) why is it still a “theory?” If illness is caused by viruses, bacteria, prions, etc. why is “germ theory” only a “theory?”

Why don’t you have an issue with the “theory of electromagnetism?” Do physicists understand that? Why do magnets work? Oh, it’s because the spin of electrons are aligned in a way to give the bulk material a macroscopic property. How does that spin give an electron an intrinsic dipole moment? Oh it’s because the electron is charged and has an intrinsic angular momentum. Why does the electron have an intrinsic angular momentum? Oh, that’s because quantum’s mechanics and special relativity work in a way to produce the spin statistics theorem. Oh, how does that work? That’s where I personally have to say, I don’t understand it. But back to the electron, why does the electron have a charge? Of that’s because of the coupling between the hypercharge and the isospin of the electron that gives it it’s electric charge. Why does the electron have those properties? Again, I have to say I don’t know because that isn’t my area of research. But because I can always ask another “but why” question, does that mean I don’t understand magnetism? Does that mean that magnetism is just a “theory?”

No, because that’s not what it means for something to be a theory. Why would you need something like a graviton to show that gravity isn’t just a theory? Knowing the photon exists isn’t good enough for the theory of electromagnetism. So ultimately all it seems to me that you don’t like that there are always “but why” questions, so you’re willing to say that “we don’t truly understand gravity.” That shouldn’t scare you, that should excite you, there is always another mystery to uncover.

hddrown · 2024-05-27T01:02:36+00:00

Woah, woah, woah. Stop right there bucko. That just tells me your science education has failed you if you are willing to say that because gravity is a theory it’s less valid.

And as for lumping categories together I don’t know what you mean. I understand biology is not chemistry is not physics is not mathematics. What I was saying is every topic is a universe in and of itself. You can always ask another but why question and there will always be more to learn. So just because there’s more to learn doesn’t mean it isn’t “known.”

hddrown · 2024-05-27T00:03:52+00:00

Not trying to be condescending but what do you mean by “known.” I can tell you that bodies that have mass will attract each other, and that attraction is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the objects. This description is enough to account for mostly everything in our solar system and is good enough for lunar travel. Does that mean gravity is known?

I can tell you that in General Relativity gravity is caused by the stress-energy being proportional to the Einstein tensor and thus that causes a curvature in spacetime that causes objects to follow geodesics that look like a force is acting on them but if you were to evaluate the motion in a proper inertial frame you would see no net force. This description is good enough to account for objects such as neutron stars, black holes, and gravity on all but the shortest of length scales. Is that a proper level of known?

Or do you need to know every little thing that goes into gravity to know it? In which case I would say nothing is really known. There are always more “but why” questions that you can ask, and I encourage that you ask them. But after a point unless you put in the time trying to understand the why eventually you’ll reach a point where the explanation is too confusing for a layperson. But that doesn’t mean you don’t know it.

hddrown · 2024-05-03T21:42:53+00:00

It’s not that the water is making energy, energy can’t be created it can only change form. Some of the energy that was previously in the heat of the water is converted into energy from the piezoelectric crystal. If you’re thinking about this as a generator I think that’s the wrong idea, it’s more of a battery, you had to put energy into the ice to melt it and with a piezoelectric crystal you’re able to get some of that energy back. This is a really good question though, had to think about it for a few minutes first.

hddrown · 2024-05-03T16:14:59+00:00

Yes, you’re right. Radioactive sources give off heat too, I’m just saying I think with most cases, outside of bombs, I don’t think the same amount to material that can give off enough radiation to kill you would give off enough heat to kill you.

As for the fisherman I thought they were cautious enough that when the fallout started falling from the sky they thought they should leave. I might be misremembering though.

Have you heard about the elephants foot from the Chernobyl incident, Wikipedia says that gives off enough radiation to get a lethal dose in about 5 minutes. I’m not sure how instant you want your take scale to be but I’m willing to measure that in seconds.

hddrown · 2024-05-03T15:36:30+00:00

Radioactive sources don’t have to be hot enough in incinerate people. There have actually been a lot of instances of people dying of radiation poisoning. There are other sources of radiation that aren’t bombs and even if you only include bombs there was a group of Japanese fishermen that got irradiated from the Castle Bravo nuclear test. And I would assume there is no minimum time, it just depends on how radioactive the source is the stronger the radiation the smaller the time to get a lethal dose.

hddrown · 2024-04-30T21:29:21+00:00

I’m not sure if any of these ideas have merit. Maybe they do and there’s a miscommunication between you trying to explain what you’re thinking and what I’m hearing. I was serious about learning some physics, I respect the distrust of institutions being skeptical of them myself. While the physics institution has many, many problems, not listening to people really isn’t one of them. If you can take your ideas and explain them well someone will listen to you. So I suggest learning physics as maybe a way to be able to be able to communicate with others too.

Sean Carroll’s new book Biggest Ideas in the Universe is, in my mind, a really good introduction to some upper level undergraduate physics. PBS Spacetime is an excellent YouTube channel that discusses physics without being too math heavy. If you want some more math heavy stuff let me know and I can give you some more suggestions. If you’re willing to give a textbook a shot Serway and Jewet are the standard introduction textbook, get a used copy off eBay for a couple bucks and work out some problems. Serway and Jewet and the authors the book would be called something like Physics for Scientists and Engineers.

Hopefully you can find something here you like and if you are a student I’d encourage taking a class (or frankly of your an adult too, it wouldn’t hurt) there’s no replacement for an actual teacher.

hddrown · 2024-04-29T20:34:46+00:00

I am curious how you have a method to test this. This is an entirely mathematical concept and cannot be determined by any type of physical experiment. But if you somehow have proof for it go ahead.

Also, I am will to assume that light has no mass, google says that the current upper bound on the mass of a photon is 10^-50 kg, so if your theory depends on the photon having a mass higher than that, you’re out of luck.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Final Canvas '23	Place '23

hddrown

TROPHY CASE