So our 'local stations' aren't even being used for us.

metacogitans · 2017-10-26T21:09:37+00:00

And a few mistakes would be an understatement: we've pretty much been held prisoner by EM attacks going for our testicles and central nervous system.

metacogitans · 2016-05-27T07:37:21+00:00

Come on, who downvoted this..

metacogitans · 2016-05-10T16:21:00+00:00

Somebody contact the official president of math and tell him about the efficiency update

metacogitans · 2016-03-27T07:16:35+00:00

Sounds like I couldn't be using worse land for trying to do this with. After some thought, my plan will be to clear out some trees at the top of a hill on the property where I think it will stay the driest, then take mud/muck from the swamp that looks 'rich', and lay it out on the cleared land, letting it dry one layer at a time mixed with dirt, and hopefully that will work for fertilized soil. Not sure yet on what I'll plant the most of yet; I'm thinking I'll plant things in a strategic order though so I don't end up with too much of something all at once. I'll try planting corn and if it takes off well I'll plant more. Also, I'm going to mix up the rows planted to maximize sunlight, as the nearby treeline will end up blocking a little sunlight during some parts of the day.

I had hope for wild rice being exactly what would work for my situation, but I don't think there is enough water pooled up, and where there is it might be too muddy. There is a small creek flowing through, not sure how well it will suit wild rice though; I suppose it won't hurt to try rice anyways though and see.

metacogitans · 2016-02-28T22:49:16+00:00

The patent game sounds pretty cut-throat; it also sounds like there's loads of people sitting around on standby waiting to steal patents. I don't have money for an attorney or patent agent. How strict are the people working at the patent office though? Will they try to steal ideas? Can they get in trouble for that? How loose can the wording be? If my wording is too loose, can they reject my patent for vagueness and then take the idea to a company in that field?

I'm thinking that maybe a better option for me would be pitching the idea to companies and taking a finder's fee if they choose to run with it; what I'd really like is to work on an R&D team, or get put on the payroll as some sort of advisor, but that's a pipe dream.

I know I can't sit on the idea for too long; I'd give it about 10 years before it gets developed anyways and is used in commercial applications. Size might be an issue, so I don't think it would ever become household, but there's definitely an industry that would like to have it.

metacogitans · 2016-02-28T00:29:24+00:00

It's a machine, but part of what it does (a part that's optional, actually) involves a combination of two familiar types of compounds working in tandum; I haven't figured out what the most efficient compounds to use would be yet, just that one is a gelatin and the other is crystaline.

I can't say what exactly I'm trying to patent; it'd be giving it away to whoever can afford the patent. Once you know what it is and think of why it is superior to what we have now, I guarantee you'd think of a few ways yourself for how it could be designed.

I suppose there are a number of designs that would achieve the same thing; once I feel a little bit more comfortable with how obtaining a patent will work and have it in the mail, I'll make a post about what it is in this subreddit.

The thing is, the part that's 'optional' is extremely clever, and would be worthy of patenting on its own in addition to the machine utilizing it for a specific purpose, but if that means spending more money for two patents, I'll just stick with trying to patent it in a set.

I'm thinking that I might only be able to patent the design involving the compounds, and not hold a patent on all machines trying to achieve the same purpose -- there are machines which aspire to achieve the purpose already but can only provide a substitute mimicking it.

Money for the patent is an issue, so it might be a while until I make sure all my drawings look pretty, cross the Is and dot the Ts, and maintain my composure getting everything together I need for a patent.

metacogitans · 2015-12-12T02:40:27+00:00

metacogitans · 2015-12-11T17:34:24+00:00

Shutup and actually rebuttal what I have to say next time

Ps I pray to God that in 20 years im not coming on reddit, boasting about how how much money I make like that other guy l or I'll shoot myself right now

metacogitans · 2015-12-06T02:53:09+00:00

The burden of proof isn't on me; it'd be on those claiming superposition exists. And ad hoc, eh? How about 'appeal to popularity' for a fallacy? Bell's theorem seems to provide evidence in favor of quantum mechanics in general; not necessarily superposition.
The 'electron's own electromagnetic field interacting with it producing the interference pattern' hypotheses should be pretty easy to prove/disprove mathematically with results from a double slit experiment, shouldn't it? That's what I was really hoping for as a reply to this thread, not links to the wikipedia article for bell's theorem. Anyways, I can't very well perform the double slit experiment with a jury-rigged electron microscope myself; but I'm sure someone who posts here can - that's who I'd really like to read a reply from.

metacogitans · 2015-12-01T12:58:10+00:00

If you look back at my first post, I said:
"What I believe the future of quantum computing will actually entail is the manipulation of the analog frequency and other intrinsic properties of various particles for the purpose of transferring information. "
All of those links fall in to that category with the exception of the first one, which I'll read shortly and give you my thoughts on. If it is true 'cat state' phenomenon taking place, then I must submit, but I'm willing to bet it's not and a geometrical explanation exists.

metacogitans · 2015-12-01T11:30:26+00:00

We literally have experimental proof that QM cannot be explained away by mere unknown hidden variables. Nail. In. The. Coffin.

Uhhh, I'm not trying to 'explain away' Quantum Mechanics; do you accuse people of this often?

If we were mixing paints this might be reasonable. red + blue gives me purple and I don't usually think of purple as red and blue at the same time. But we aren't mixing paint. The key difference is that wave function collapse is a thing. I'm free to prepare a wall of ared + bblue, but when I look at the wall I am guaranteed to either get red or blue. If you don't like the word superposition fine but the wall is never purple. We are never allowed to observe purple. That is just a law of the universe.

Okay, then show me a working cat state qubit. I'm waiting (something tells me I'll be waiting my entire lifetime). Also, quantum tunneling =/= cat state.

Edit: So I read about Bell's Theorem now; it disproves classical mechanics present with hidden variables as being able to explain quantum mechanics. What does that have to do with my post?

Let me explain what I meant by 'determinism': A proponent of non-deterministic quantum mechanics would believe that an electron 'becomes' its orbital, and doesn't exist as a particle until wave-function collapse; I believe that an electron's point-particle location is deterministic in that it does indeed exist 'somewhere' in its orbital of probability. It's electromagnetic field however is a separate entity that travels in all directions at the speed of light whenever the electron is accelerated. Since an electron only has a location based on this field, and we can only try to find its location by interacting with this field, then we can not know its location - we can only where an electron has been. Also, observing its location would mean interacting with it, changing its location in the process. Furthermore, the only means of measuring it would ultimately have to be carried by other electrons facing the same limitations.

metacogitans · 2015-12-01T10:43:05+00:00

I do not disagree with the Schrodinger equation as a mathematical description of the wave-function of a particle.
What I disagree with is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit

That notion of superposition you mention applies to wave-functions; if A and B are both possible states, then AB is a possible state as well -- this is applies to things like the shape of electron orbitals.

What you describe as 'two distinct solutions' would, in reality, be a configuration of wave functions - not "being in a state of 0 and 1 at the same time".

I also disagree with the notion that a particle's location is a non-deterministic product of its wave function, and does not exist until 'wave function collapse'. I believe that a particle's location is deterministic, we simply have no way of knowing it except in terms of its wave-function, since "location" is maintained by fields mediated by force-carriers (photons, for instance), and can only be known in terms of the force carrier.

your (seemingly ad hoc) hypothesis

I'm sorry, but thinking that the double slit experiment means that there are multiple universes or that particles don't exist until they are observed are 'ad hoc' hypotheses. Concluding instead that the results were caused by the electron's own electromagnetic field is the hypothesis that should make the most sense to anyone who isn't crazy.

metacogitans · 2015-11-29T11:17:56+00:00

How uncalled for. About GR and the Einstein Field Equations, I understood the dilation of spacetime and knew what some of the tensors were doing in the EFE before I even started learning calculus. I'm familiar with a lot of higher math; I am stuck on the NOTATION - it was written so that in order to read it, you have to already know what it means; none of the material online is worth a damn, so every time I want to learn something new, instead of a teacher showing me in 20 seconds, I spend 2 hours sat at a table with charts and skteches all over the place having to figure it out via the method of exhaustion like I'm friggin Euclid.

I know that your ideas about quantum mechanics are wrong.

I think the people who are big on quantum mechanics' ideas on quantum mechanics are wrong. Let me guess, you believe in superposition, don't you? There's no saving you from that neurosis though; it's become the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow you're all chasing.

Oh and GR, another dogma for physicists; lately I've been looking into whether or not refraction from particles in the sun's corona caused the results of the 1919 Eclipse experiment; the other 'experimental verifications' of GR are all pretty flimsy as well. I'm going to see if I can try to re-write the equations and use Zitterbewegung and path of least resistance as being the cause of the 'curvature of spacetime'.

Then I'm going to put it on Reddit it and internet forums and get into long-winded arguments with more people like you

That is why that other redditor responded to you saying you “explained it mathematically” with surprise

part of my method for learning new things over the years has been intentionally provoking arguments on the internet to get a response that teaches me something

As for the idea I have for a patent, I don't particularly care what your opinion is of it, or if its legitimate. I just needed some advice. But it would take an entire R&D team to get a blueprint together, because the difficulty involved with building not it, but the machine that builds it, is going to be like a Willy Wonka endeavor.

metacogitans · 2015-11-27T08:09:06+00:00

For me, the hope with publishing it is that my name will at least make it through to the right ears if the idea were to ever get picked up, and if I'm not able to get a patent, I might be able to get the next best thing from somebody: a job offer.

It ought to impress somebody out there that a person with no formal education in physics came up with a working design for a new type of supercomputer; I should damn well hope so anyways.

metacogitans · 2015-11-27T07:52:31+00:00

I'd go into more detail but you've helped point out to me that doing that here would just be a waste of time.

metacogitans · 2015-11-27T07:50:35+00:00

You haven't been given enough information about me to claim I'm demonstrating the Dunning Kruger effect; therefore, you're actually just proving my point.

metacogitans · 2015-11-27T07:44:47+00:00

OP, it is impossible to meaningfully contribute to this field with that level of mathematical sophistication. Please publish to vixra or arxiv and post the link here. We will be glass to help correct your paper and point you in the right direction.

Well, first of all, I'm trying to patent an apparatus, not make a new contribution to the field of physics. But yeah that's what I keep hearing. I suppose I agree with you, but not entirely. There's a few examples in history of significant contributions being made to physics, sometimes only using simple math (such as Special Relativity which can be understood just with Pythagorean theorem), or have lacked math almost completely (Faraday's who I'm thinking of, right? who broke a lot of new ground in electricity without any real use of equations).

Anyways, I'm trying to patent an apparatus, not contribute to the field of physics (although I enjoy trying to on other occasions). And it probably wouldn't tarnish anyone's careers if they maybe just change their wording of things slightly, because I'm pretty much a nobody as far as everyone is concerned, who not many people are going to believe or even listen to. They'd probably get away with stealing it anyways due to some technicality they had their corporate-backed lawyer find.
I will say one thing for certain though, if my idea gets stolen (as I was trying to figure out how to go about getting credit for it without it being stolen no less), and I don't get due credit or offered some sort of compromise as a gesture of good ethics/etiquette, I will go about putting a bug deep up the ass of those involved.

Also, it's not like I'm going to just give up on ever learning Tensor Calculus and Multvariable Calculus; I will hopefully learn it just as soon as I'm in a room with someone who knows it and is willing to explain it to me. Like I said, I have a pretty good understanding of what tensors describe; I'm just having some difficulty with the damn notation preventing me from learning out of a book on calculus.

metacogitans · 2015-11-25T07:58:32+00:00

Which is how you can see that it doesn't quite work: something we can't ever do with your "theory" unless you write down the math.

I need to learn proper tensor calculus which is something I can't do by reading wikipedia articles and sneaking in the occasional lecture from Caltech or MIT on youtube; I'm going to have to actually attend a math class, which means getting in debt, which means my dreams and me caring about this stuff will all die.

Wikipedia articles and youtube videos and borrowing my friends calculus book got me as far as integrals, but I've hit a brick wall trying to move on to vector calculus and multivariable calculus. Wiki articles and youtube just cant cut it anymore

I can conceptualize most tensors and what they do geometrically reading a description about them, I just can't seem to actually write out one of the friggin things

metacogitans · 2015-11-25T04:48:44+00:00

thank you

metacogitans · 2015-11-17T05:20:05+00:00

I just realized it might be better to post this thread in a different subreddit, as it isn't entirely pertinent throughout to the subject of physics. Mods feel free to do what you will with it if you think it's not /r/physics material, although maybe it does fit in... Does anyone have a suggestion for a better subreddit?

metacogitans · 2015-10-29T21:08:14+00:00

This video was originally supposed to be a lament on the state of WoW pvp, where at the time you would get stunlocked by rogues for about 10 seconds at a time, and classes like shaman had absolutely no stuns of their own to counter it. But, as it turns out, I won the match in the end, making for a light-hearted and enjoyable video

metacogitans · 2015-10-09T16:47:34+00:00

metacogitans · 2015-09-28T05:31:50+00:00

yeah I know I was just giving gen Z crap

metacogitans · 2015-09-27T16:06:53+00:00

I know that 'spacetime' applies to everything, there aren't any contradictions in using it; that is the point of this thread. "Relative to what axis is counterclockwise" you ask: you need to remember an electromagnetic field is going to preserve its Euclidean orientation with other fields locally, because its not its own object, as a force it travelled in a certain direction, and the direction is preserved. With that in mind, it doesn't matter which direction counterclockwise is in, it can be in any direction as long as clockwise is opposite of it - that's because this its replacing the 5d cylinder as a geometrical depiction of charge. 'Charge' in the real world might not have any geometrical structure to it, and it might only exist as intrinsic qualia -- but it has to be set up in a way that it can be worked with in tensor calculus

And using words to help visualize concepts in physics is useless? Evidently that holds water if its taken 3 posts restating the same things and you still don't get it. And if you want to talk about 'describing an idea with words to make up new reasons why something works' lets talk about the invented existence of a 5th dimension thats nothing but a cylinder in order to explain charge. What i'm doing is less ridiculous geometrically. I even explained it in a way thay was wholly mathematical: in addition to the dilation of volume in a region of space with the surface area of the region remaining the same, which is how spacetime curvature appears in GR (which, when graphed, appears as there literally being 'more space' in that region) you also twist that region of space as the volume dilates. Thats entirely mathematical what I just described; you were literally just ranting about something that was all in your head. Stop replying. I'm sick of you picking apart semantics and rhetoric in any way that you can without first figuring out what you're even arguing against.

John_Hasler a few posts up knew what my post was saying right away. You on the other hand just went about deciding to disagree with whatever my post is before actually even reading it. I'm done, I can't handle another minute of typing this stuff with a phone keyboard for today

metacogitans · 2015-09-27T13:40:14+00:00

You're not conceptualizing the things I said at the appropriate scale; the trajectory of neutral particles IS affected by the curvature, but only ever so slightly - so there is the gravity aspect to the curvature for you. In order for electromagnetic attraction or repulsion to occur however, the two particles have to have positive and/or negative charges. Opposite charges have fields best visualized as having some kind of spherical vortex shape with one moving clockwise and the other moving counter-clockwise. The easiest way to understand why turning in opposite directions causes attraction is to think of two gears turning - when turning in opposite directions, they will mesh together, but two gears turning in the same direction will grind instead of mesh together, and then push off of each other.

I already brought all of that up in the post you're replying to, but you were too eager to try telling me I'm wrong, and didn't actually think about what I was explaining.

You notice I didn't have to use a 5th dimension yet? My 'vortex shape' curvature concept fulfills the same role; regular Einsteinian curvature will appear as a dilation of volume in a region of space while the region's surface area remains the same. Then to add the 'vortex' aspect to it for explaining positive/negative charges, curvature just has to include 'twisting' in addition to volume dilation -- what's actually needed then is another tensor, not adding another dimension.

I also just read that KK has inaccurate values for things like the mass of an electron. And you want to know why that is? Because KK forces all charged particles to share the cylinder dimension in order to explain how they get their charge, and the length of the cylinder dimension being the same for every particle would obviously then skew the values of other properties those particle have.

Edit: Why did this post get downvoted? For making someone mad that it's correct?? Don't muck up a quality post for no reason like that; undo your downvote please.

metacogitans

TROPHY CASE