RuthlessOptimism

I can only relate my personal experiences and advice given to me at the time by medical professionals. I am not an expert in chemistry or medicine. However here is some food for thought. Lets say it is unlikely, but possible for people to end up in the situation I did and they do directly because of what they have read here. Where I live the advice taken from this thread could be interpreted as negligent advice and those involved in relaying it could be found liable via tort to the effected party. Now in this hypothetical situation there are large differences between, me, you, and actual healthcare professionals if you are not one. The first is that in court we would be held to different levels of accountability for our advice. I being a layperson who is not an expert would be held to the standard of a layperson. On the other hand people who represent themselves as professionals or experts would be held to a higher level of accountability characteristic of the level of accountability of other professionals and experts in their field. The second important difference is that unless you are a registered doctor you probably don’t have millions of dollars worth of liability insurance to protect you just in case something like this unlikely event occurred. Whether what happened to me is unlikely to the point that it disagrees with established doctrines whatever you want to call it is a bit irrelevant, it happened. And so you might want to be a bit more careful about giving what could be interpreted as expert advice.

Then I would like you to delete this thread. There is no way I can conveniently re-create everything covered in the videos I create in a format that can be posted on this forum, as such there is no point in continuing it.

I've recently made what I think are some interesting theoretical observations regarding Tetryonics, and created a video series regarding this and uploaded it on to YouTube. Unfortunately I don't remember what e-mail I associated with my last YouTube account so these are uploaded under a different one with the exact same user name (from what I understand of how accounts work this should not be possible). url deleted This is the link to the playlist of videos I have created. The total time of all of them is about 2 hours. The basics of what I have done in them is shown how theoretical aspects of Transmission Line, or Microwave Engineering mirrors a lot of theoretical aspects of Tetryonics. Specifically regarding the way that KEM fields should interact with each other and produce acceleration on each other during events like elastic collisions. But the theory should be able to be generalized to any field geometry. Barring finding solutions to a few stumbling blocks within this new model of KEM interactions it could be used to actually perform computation within the Theory of Tetryonics and simulate particle interactions. What is especially interesting is that unlike the standard model we are not limited in this model to only predict the before and after outcomes of a collision or interaction based upon the conservation of momentum or energy. If this model could be completed it would allow one to see a collision in real time as it occurs, and the subsequent creation / mechanism for the creation of things like photons and other particles out of the collision. A lot of this lecture series will basically be review for most people familiar with classical electromagnetics but it might be difficult to skip large portions of it because of some important observations made along the way to building transmission line theory.

It doesn't matter if its statistically meaningless. My point is exactly what you stated, no treatment is perfect for everyone. I'm just saying that the possibility of ear infections is something you might want to take under advisement, especially if you are already prone to ear infections. Simply using filtered warm water is a much better option in my opinion.

What is data but anecdotes that have been more carefully recorded. It doesn't really matter where the citation is from, in my case I ended up going to the hospital, and more than one doctor told me after this that olive oil in your ears is a bad idea.

I still would not use food oils for this. I was speaking from personal experience, your citation is wrong.

You probably shouldn't use any food oils for this purpose. Its unlikely but possible for it to remain in your ear long enough to go rancid and cause a really nasty infection.

Hello, relatively quick question, could go under physics, math, or computer science but I put it here. I was just wondering if it is possible to create a Finite Difference Time Domain numerical simulation for sound waves similar to how it is possible to do it for electromagnetic waves. Has anyone ever done this before? I've looked around but cant seem to find anything. Does anyone know of any good sources to learn more about this if it has been done? Like papers, or books on acoustic design or something.

I have gone through the exact same thing before. My advice sounds bad, but for me it worked. If you want to get better at doing and understanding proofs / more abstract mathematics the best way for me was to simply do more of it and read more about it. Simply seeing many correctly solved examples and memorizing the basic strategy for solving them is very helpful There is a math competition in North America called the Putnam Mathematics contest. It is not the hardest one in the world but all of the questions are proof based and are marked as either 100% correct, or wrong. Joining / or forming a club for studying for it and competing in it is a good way to practice doing proofs. Even if you are very stuck initially and don't even know how to start simply looking at past solutions is very helpful. Like I said it sounds bad, but the more proofs you've seen and basically memorized the easier they will be to do on your own because you will have many similar ideas / situations to draw experience from basically moments like: "ah this is very similar to that problem that I've already seen done, I will try something similar and see what results". Memorization seems to always be looked down upon in academia and creativity is favored with regards to problem solving. But in my opinion memorization is the foundation for creativity. You can only be creative with things that you understand so intuitively that you don't even need to think about why it works / is true. And like ajb said a good test for understanding is if you can explain in simplistic terms to someone who is not really a mathematician how / why something works.

In my opinion IQ tests are not very good at testing peoples intelligence, partially because it is possible to "study" for them. Even the ones mostly regarding pattern recognition are seriously flawed in this, as a lot of the questions they ask can be answered very simply by formulae taken from discrete mathematics. There is no deductive reasoning required simply plug numbers into the correct formula.

If you want to learn more about the memory palace technique I highly recommend the book: "Moonwalking With Einstein". I read that book a few years ago and ever since have used the memory palace technique to study / memorize things for school. T.V. obviously embellishes things to make a better story. For me the memory palace technique doesn't work like: "I store a memory in a file folder or in a room". What I do is imagine myself walking along a specific route through my town (which I have fairly well memorized from just walking around in it) and in order to memorize a list of facts, ideas or concepts I leave a symbolic scene at different landmarks along the route. The more vivid the scene is, utilizing more of my senses simultaneously the easier it is to recall it, it also helps if the scene is absurd, or funny. Like Delta1212 said anyone can learn to use the memory palace technique, most people can fairly easily memorize a list of 30-45 random words on their very first try. This is quite amazing since most peoples "working memory" for memorizing stuff without utilizing this trick peaks at about 5-7 words / or things. It takes practice though to be able to use this technique to memorize things quickly, for example in the book I mentioned (which is a true story) the author talks about how one of the people he meets in it holds the world record for memorizing a deck of cards the fastest, at something like 15 seconds. I've also been using this technique to basically break Lumosity's LPI system for memory. After a few plays of a specific memory game I've managed to get myself into the 97th percentile for memory in my age group. The way I understand how the LPI system works, basically the site ranks me as having a better memory than 97% of all other website users worldwide in my age group. I did this by basically just memorizing a random list of about 200 objects (the "tidal treasures" game).

Thank you Swansont that link was very helpful. I was kind of thinking that some energy would end up being emitted as photons. I've read a little bit about cherenkov radiation before (the simplified popular mechanics version), so I knew decelerated particles will give off photons, but I did not know accelerated ones did to. So what is still weird and interesting to me about say a "collision" between two charged particles with the same polarity of charge is that if they collide head on, then bounce back the way they came they have to go through deceleration (of their original velocity), then acceleration (to their new velocity going the opposite way), so why don't they emit a photon or photon(s) twice?

Hello I have a few basic questions regarding the elastic collisions of particles. Basically my questions are: "are collisions between subatomic particles, for example: electrons, perfectly elastic?". Also: "are they perfectly elastic all of the time?" and finally regarding any answer I get "is there actual data, for example: from particle collider experiments, that actually proves / or supports this?". Thank you.

Well after doing some reading I finally found out how to correctly calculate the energy of an EM wave, its: EnergyDensity = {[(epsilon)*E*E]+[(mu)*H*H]}/2 . But this doesn't solve the additional part of my question. I can use this to define an "effective" photon wavelength, but what doing that does is say that there is basically one photon within that volume. If the volume is extremely small that is probably ok. But how do I even try to attempt to correct for the possibility of having multiple photons in that unit volume if it is large?

Hello, I have a problem where I have a 1 dimensional Finite Difference Time Domain program simulating an electromagnetic wave, classically using Maxwell's Equations and the Yee Algorithm. What I would like to do is define an "effective" photon wavelength at every grid point (I don't know if it even makes sense to do so). The way I am trying to do this is; 1.) I have the electric and magnetic field magnitudes at every grid point: Ex, Hy (the simulation is Transverse Magnetic). 2.) I calculate the energy density of the wave at each grid point: EnergyDensity = ((Ex^2)+(Hy^2))/2 3.) I multiply the energy density by my spatial unit step cubed to get the total energy at each grid point: EnergyTotal = EnergyDensity*(Delta_z^3) 4.) Since E = h*f, and c/f = wavelength I calculate the effective incident photon wavelength as: Wavelength = c/(EnergyTotal/h) . where c is the local speed of light. This gives me values of wavelength in the range of (9.22x10^9) meters. Which is obviously wrong. So my question is how do you take a classical electromagnetic wave and then "chop" / or portion it into photons so that you get the correct number of them with the correct wavelength and frequency? Is that even possible? Thank you.