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.

Not entirely sure what you are talking about and / or asking about it might help to have some disambiguation regarding different types of things that are "active" and "passive" and what resonance is. In terms of an RLC circuit, the circuit is passive if you don't get more power out of it at its output port than what you put in at the input port. You could instead make an RLC circuit that is colliquially termed "active" by including "active" elements in it, such as op amps. An op amp uses feedback to produce a higher for example, voltage, and / or power at its output compared to its input. But its important to note that this extra power does not just magically appear out of nowhere. The way an op-amp typically works is that the maximum voltage and / or power you get at the output is limited by the "supply rails". The op-amp is connected to a power source that is separate to what you are connecting to the circuits input port and the op-amp consumes power from this additional power source to amplify your input signals power. In terms of "active" materials for light, or similarily microwave amplifiers my knowledge is limited but from what I understand it doesn't work the same way though it usually uses the same terminology. For example a laser is typically created by "pumping" some type of material with photons close to the absorption frequency of a particular energy level. These photons are aborbed by the material putting their electrons into a higher energy state. The electrons subsequently decay into a lower energy state and emit a photon with an energy characteristic of the higher energy state the electron is transitioning down from. The idea as to how to create a laser in an "active" optical medium is to have the medium (in a three level laser) have three different energy levels that you are trying to work with, E3,E2,E1. E1 is the electrons rest state energy level, E2 is an excited state, E3 is a higher energy excited state. You want to pump the material such that you make electrons jump into E3, then decay down to E2, then decay again down to E1. But the emitted laser, once you reach lasing threshold, consists of photons with the difference in energy between E2 and E1. The idea is that transitions between E3 and E2 occur faster than E2 to E1, so you maintain what is called a "population inversion" with regards to where the electrons are located in terms of their energy states. The material in this case is sometimes called an "active material" but it is not working the same way as an op-amp, there is a single source of input power, and output power. You can also do the same idea as a laser but going the opposite way. Such that you use the reflection of EM waves within a "resonator" cavity to transform photons of a low energy (and low frequency) into photons of a high energy and (high frequency) once they leave the resonator cavity. But once again this is not working the same way as an op-amp though this is often called an active optical component. You once again don't get any more power out of it than what you put in, you put in a lot of low energy photons and you get out higher energy photons but there is much less of them. In terms of "resonance". Resonance is just the idea that something is "ringing" at a particular frequency. The simplest example is a swing. You push on a swing and end up creating an "oscillation" between the swinging person having lots of kinetic energy (at the bottom of the swing's arc) and having lots of potential energy (at the top of the swing's arc). Depending on the dimensions of the swing the swing will have a "resonant" frequency once you reach the maximum height that you can easily push the person you will be giving them pushes at this resonant frequency. The resonant frequency of a system is a frequency at which it is "easiest" for different components within the system to pass energy back and forth between them, also for energy to be put into the system as well as escape it. Fore example (don't do this, you might hurt yourself) if you push on the swing until the person reaches their maximum height, then try to push on them twice as fast as you already have been, you are going to end up pushing on them while they are travelling backward and they are going to slam you into the ground. Does that help?

Hello, Another quick update. I have condensed a lot of the work I've done in trying to understand, apply, and improve Kelvin Abraham's theory into three interdependent lectures that I recently gave at my university. I filmed them and have uploaded them to youtube. If you look up my user name on youtube: "RuthlessOptimism". You should be able to find my channel, which has the same name. Like I said these lectures are interdependent and each subsequent one assumes you watched / understood the last one. I forgot to number them in the order they are supposed to be watched (I'll fix this later) which is: 1.) Tetryonics: Deriving the Periodic Table -Like the title says in this one I use Tetryonics / all of its main assumptions about energy to derive the periodic table and its properties. 2.) Tetryonics: Kyle's Attempt at Deriving the Theory, Material Properties, Gravity -In this video I relate my general strategy (that is still incomplete in most areas) as to how you could derive the theory of Tetryonics itself. This is the exact same thing as what was in my original post in this thread except with a few minor improvements in the way it is explained. 3.) Tetryonics: 3d Time Domain Quanta -This is the most interesting one in my opinion. In this one I talk about my incomplete / ongoing work in trying to make the theory more tractable to computation, the 3d time domain model for these quanta that I have so far come up with. I also talk a bit about special relativity, general relativity, how time dilation comes about in Tetryonics, as well as what is normally described as bending of space in general relativity. Also, the uncertainty relation, lap laces equation, how solutions to differential equations can be abstracted to transformations performed upon discrete geometries (as well as all measurements in physics), how Fourier analysis is connected to Tetryonics, as well as entanglement. *NOTE: I am not a very good public speaker (yet), and I did not have a whole lot of time to prepare for doing this. So I misspoke a lot but there are annotations to clear up what I actually meant to say. Plus I end up using the same phrases a lot, its annoying even to me now that I go back and re-watch it. I am probably going to re-record these at some later date when I have more stuff to add to them.

Thank you imatfaal. After a helpful class lecture today I have another quick update about modelling 3d quanta. This link is to my imgur acount again showing some results of a simple numerical simulation (mostly created by someone else), as to how the magnetic and electric field components of 3d quanta could be modeled through space. http://imgur.com/a/uC9bL

Still working on the whole multiple directions of the solar wind thing. This is actually a correction to my reparametrization of epslion and ooh in terms of geometry. Something that is a bit tricky to keep track of when trying to reparametrize systems is the 1/c^2 as I think I've related before it can mean multiple things: an arbitrary area that we have defined (that could be static or expanding at constant rate) within which we are measuring a quantity, or an intrinsic property of energy (its literal 2d area or size) which can be: bounded by a fixed area (the energy is held from expanding and propogating due to a force or feedback), or a constant rate of change (in terms of QAM, or the projection of perpendicular area of the time domain description of the quanta into a reference plane), or another case where the literal 2d area / or size of the energy is being compressed (EM wavelength contraction or expansion due to the addition or subtraction of quanta into a geometry) or is rubber banding and expanding (Doppler independent red shift). It could also mean all of these things simultaneously. Hopefully all this latex comes out properly. [latex] \epsilon = \frac{A^2 s^4}{kg m^3} \epsilon = \frac{\frac{kg}{s}^2 s^4}{kg m^3} \epsilon = \frac{kg s^2}{m^3} \epsilon = \frac{frac{E}{c^2}}{V\prime\prime} Epsilon is planar energy density per accelerating volumetric expansion. \mu = \frac{N}{A^2} \mu = \frac{kg \frac{m}{s^2}}{\frac{kg}{s}^2} \mu = \frac{m}{kg} \mu = \frac{m}{\frac{E}{\frac{m^2}{s^2}}} \mu = \frac{V\prime \prime}{E} \epsilon \mu = \frac{V\prime \prime}{E} \frac{frac{E}{c^2}}{V\prime\prime} \epsilon \mu = \frac{1}{c^2} [\latex]

I did not wrongly attribute electric field theory as we know it to Newton. He and his contemporaries had theories about electric interactions that are now not well known. They viewed the repulsion of electrostatically charged objects of the same polarity as being like billiard balls hitting each other without touching, and a similar but different mechanism for gravity and charges of opposite polarity. I don’t know how to describe this in a good way, it is subtly different from the idea of a field. I agree, I was simply using paradigm shifts as an example of thinking outside of the box that is similar to the way people colloquially use the concept of thinking outside of the box.

Yes I know that was silly, that is what I meant before when I said that I was not being specific enough. What I meant to say was that all paradigm shifting scientific breakthroughs by my definition require the refutation of previously held ideas, not all scientific breakthroughs. But that is also a good point about paradigm changing discoveries that had no antecedent theory, however some of those as I understand it may have been by accident, like antibiotics and micro-organisms. In those cases you could argue that any expertise held by the one(s) who made the discovery was a bit irrelevant. I am not trying to be hyperbolic, I am actually trying not to be, I guess I’ll try harder. If you count James Clerk Maxwell as being the start of modern descriptions of electric effects, then only two centuries. But the point is (with regards to Newton and Kelvin) that in an institution where leaders earn their position by achievement, like in academia, their opinions hold a great deal of clout. Disagreeing with them may not be conducive to your own advancement if the environment of this institution does not foster alternative thinking. Even if it does, some people still might be too intimidated to voice their actual opinions because of the prestige held by those they are challenging. Thank you. This thread has made me think of an interesting question partially related to this topic, that many people will probably find equally controversial, and annoying (there I was joking and purposely trying to be hyperbolic). I’ll post that in another thread, but maybe not tonight

How many times do I have to point out to you that I am not saying that expertise is not relevant, nor that major contributors to science don’t have it (regardless of where they got that expertise). What I am saying is that possessing knowledge, as counterintuitive as this may seem, can be as limiting as not possessing it. And I want you to take special note that I wrote “can be as limiting”, not “is”, because I know you are going to think I am making a sweeping generalization that I am actually not. The reason why is a matter of perspective. If you are taught something some way, or taught to think a certain way and you don’t question this knowledge or doctrine you will obviously not discover alternative descriptions of this knowledge nor alternative methodologies. You are trapped inside of a box. Taking for granted the fact that the description of a process is accurate, or that one methodology works is limiting. You may assume that this is just the way things work, or this is the way we’ve always done it, and miss opportunities to discover a way that is better. This is similar to the idea of “survival bias”, it seems to me that scientific theories and the development of knowledge in general are very susceptible to this type of bias. Once again this is not an intentional aspect of the pursuit of scientific knowledge, though also once again just because science is generally associated with altruistic goals and endeavors does not mean that it and all who practice it are incapable of reprehensible actions. Also I never said that all autodidacts make major contributions to science, I said that a surprising number of influential people in history were autodidacts. For the last time I am not saying that expertise is unnecessary, nor that experts are incapable of having original ideas, if you actually read what I originally posted my point of view can basically be stripped away into its rawest form as: “sometimes an outside opinion is helpful”. This is crazy, you keep completely ignoring the point(s) that I try to make and twist my words into possessing meaning that they clearly don’t. It is impossible to actually have a discussion or argument like this. For the record Strange, until you learn to actually understand someones point of view before attempting to criticize it I am just going to ignore your responses to my posts.

Do you actually read anything that I post? By my definition of thinking outside of the box, everything they come up with is technically thinking outside of the box because they were never bound by it to begin with. They are outsiders to the established doctrine, methodology, and knowledge base. No I do not have it the wrong way around. The aether is not the same thing as action at a distance as people at the time classified it. The aether was as you said associated with light, which was thought by many to be a wave. Within their current pool of knowledge (or box) it was known waves needed a medium to travel through, hence the proposition of an aether. Action at a distance was a characteristic associated with gravity, and charge interactions. Newton and many prominent scientists of the time scoffed at the idea of a “field” describing electric and gravitational interactions. To them the idea that objects could interact without touching was “obvious”. It was not until Maxwell came along with his equations that mathematical formulations of fields began to become prominent because his equations predicted the speed of light accurately. No, that was actually a quote from the famous scientist Lord Kelvin himself, who also thought that “X-rays will soon be proven to be a hoax”. Once again it is like you are refusing to understand what I have written. I am not saying that experts are unnecessary or have nothing to offer, go back and read my posts again, I never wrote or argued that idea. What you all seem to be ignoring is the fact that at some point, all knowledge that is accepted now, or technology that we take for granted was not obvious. Someone had to actually make a connection between disparate knowledge bases, ideas, methodologies or doctrines, or try something new within their own field. Often times contradictory to established ideas, or conventional wisdom.

I was trying to point out that the examples that I gave were of cases that I defined as thinking outside the box. In your OP you asked this: I was not trying to misrepresent what you said, I was trying to disagree with you in a "fancy and clever" way. It is logical to think that your creativity, or perspective on things in general is restricted as much by what you do know as what you don’t. Take indoctrination of child soldiers as an extreme example. It is not possible to be an expert on everything, to know every fact that exists. For every “thing” you learn you are basically excluding yourself from learning at least one other “thing” in its place. This is not pseudo science or a bunch of mumbo jumbo, if you want think of it in terms of neurons. Memories and skills are basically constructed inside of your head out of neurons, physical objects, there is only a finite amount of volume in your head for brain Matter, only so much room for neural paths. If you want evidence look at the research on neural plasticity, how cab drivers hippocampus’ are enlarged due to the necessity of a heightened sense of spatial awareness and navigation in their job. They learn to be a cab driver, it literally alters their brain structure. I basically agree with everything CharonY wrote, except that I do define this as thinking outside the box. In order to push scientific and technological advancement people must and do continually find new ways of applying or combining old knowledge that in their purist form may not be closely related, to me that is thinking outside the box. I guess I was not being specific enough. What I meant by paradigm shifting breakthroughs are scientific discoveries that significantly alter our perception of nature, for example matter wave duality, and / or our place or relationship to it, for example man made climate change. Basically by definition a paradigm shift is paired with the casting off of previously held beliefs that turned out to be wrong, or in other words the realization that our box has failed us. I would not really classify any examples you listed as paradigm shifting discoveries.

Ramanujan is an Indian mathematician who made a bunch of contributions to mathematics. He did not acquire any formal mathematical training until he had already re-derived (from scratch) a bunch of different theorems that were already known, but not known to him. Some of his other work was original, and unknown in mathematics at the time. He is basically the poster person of someone who thought outside of the box “as it is usually used by posters on science forums”. If you want to see a list of many more similar people simply google for a list of “autodidacts”, a surprising number of influential people in history had little to no formal education or training. I am going to quote myself here: I completely agree with this statement, what I guess I did not make clear is a difference in context. What I am saying is that the rigid, intractable, unchanging adherence to past knowledge is not always a conscious effort. As I wrote before, the bias is unintentional, say you become a physicist. Because of your training you think about problems from the perspective of a physicist. Which is not nescessarily the same as the way an engineer would think about or approach problems, or an archaeologist, or a chemist, or a business analyst. When I am talking about thinking outside the box of a body of knowledge I do not mean multidisciplinary teams. If you are on a multidisciplinary team its because people before hand anticipated that your knowledge was probably going to be useful for something. The examples I gave were of situations where the outside knowledge came from a place that was unexpected. With regards to the other times, where there might indeed be a conscious effort to adhere to past knowledge. There is an equally wrong bit of conventional wisdom like “the box” idea which is the idea that because someone is educated, or a scientist they are automatically a “good” or “honest” person, or that they would never allow emotions to influence their decisions. That is obviously completely ridiculous, and I am certain anyone who has ever actually taken part in academia if you are honest with yourself can think of at least one situation where they have seen this themselves (I know I can). Maybe thinking outside the box is not the only way to progress knowledge but it is usually associated with paradigm shifting breakthroughs. Once again I am not saying that expertise, knowledge or skills are irrelevant what I am saying is that you can’t always be sure which are going to be the catalyst for new discoveries. Scientific and technological advancement is not always a linear path from point A to B. If you actually look at scientific history you will see that associated with every scientific advancement or triumph is the destruction of previously popular theories held by other scientists, or bits of conventional wisdom held by the general public or people in positions of influence (most notably the church). Here is a very small list of examples, -the earth is flat, wrong -the earth is the center of the universe, wrong -the universe is static, wrong -action at a distance does not require an intervening field, medium, or exchange particles (this was a very popular line of thought among scientifically influential people like Isaac Newton before Maxwell came along with his equations describing light), wrong -ionizing radiation comes out of the earth, wrong -heavier than air flying machines are impossible, wrong -light is a wave, not nescessarily true -light is a particle, also not nescessarily true -the atom is like a miniature solar system, wrong -particles are discrete physical objects, not nescessarily true -particles are waves, also not nescessarily true