TakenItSeriously

This doesn't make any sense to me. To begin with, autocorrelation is based on similarities between two signals that include a Lagg time which clearly does not apply to Entanglement. The binomial distribution involves the distribution of results associated with 50:50 odds which are the odds that either tester experiences for spin up or spin down from their respective points of view.

To be perfectly honest, I don't much care about the various loopholes of test or experimental riggor. I thought I should bring it up since your line seemed to be more along the rigors of test results which I didnt go into that closely since I am not a physicist or an exxperimentalist. So experimentalist is the last thing I need to know, unless a physicist decides to test my hypothesis, in which case I'd be bonning up on the riggors of experimental tests. I think questioning validity of experimental results is proper and fine if it looks like they made a mistake. My OP wasnt about the vilidity. I was asking if any anomalous results were found? I cant access the data myself since you need a student or professional registration for that. Specifically I was asking if the results showed the two testers tested the same spin 25% instead of 33% The intuitive assumption is they match 33% but I never pay attention to those assumptions when intuition doesnt apply. My logic based conclusion says says that they are comparing relative results between the two testers, So there is information added from both testors and when you look at the data that way, the they should be reading the same test orientation 25% of the time. It's non-intuitive, but so what? Its not in our normal human expereinces either so why would we expect results to be intuitive?. Phusicists in QM should understand this more than anyone. But since no one seems to want to answer this question I do have one other question about Bells premise of classical results. QM predicts a sinusoidal distribution which the test data agrees and I dont have a problem with that. However, it says that for a classical system the expected results results should be a triangle distribution which doesnt seem correct. Or at least I don't know of anything in probability that predicts a triangle distribution, I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just never heard of how it was derived and would like to see a source that explains it.. On the other hand I have heard of a binomial distribution which seems like the appropriate distribution for Bells Inequalities and binomial distributions seem closer to sinusoidal than triangular.

Iv'e always been curious about aspergers myself. The association of anti-social with aspergers which is an effect and not a cause which makes me think that the mechanism is not well understood yet. I can only speak for myself but as someone who has a 2e condition with a gift for logic and a learning disability, I have worked out the mechanism of my disability which is a weak short term memory which effects how I read and listen and which can appear like reading comprehension disorder or dislexia thought the opposite is true. Comprehension is my gift not my disorder. It really seems to come down to either insufficient short term memory and/or a weaker short term memory recall mechanism as the cause. It's like a buffer isnt large enough to allow for reading at subconscious speed. Therefore I can't read faster then I can consciously comprehend it and to retain anything in long term memory I must fully comprehend it which I can usually do very well if I could ask questions in real time. Any question I have in a lechture blocks my retention of the lecture after that point until that question is answered but by then it's really too late to help much. I also believe that much of the stuff that I retain, is more difficult for me to recall consciously but it's far easier for me to recall subconsciously. so recalling information during a test is a struggle, but recalling information for problem solving is effortless. Another words I seem to have strong working memory recall and weak short term memory recall. Since logic is the compliment of math and the two thinking processes are pretty much opposite approaches to problemsolving., I started to wonder if Aspergers (often associated with a gift for math) may be the result of the symmetrically opposite condition. Not so much short term vs long temr, but perhaps its short term recall vs working memory recall, where thier weaker half is recall in the subconscious processes. To me that means a weaker intuitive sense or a weaker subconscious connection to our experiences, and a weaker sense of what makes sense. But intuition or making logical sense is!'t that important in the methodical thinking required in mathematics and seems pretty consistant with their strong bias against intuition, lack of faith in creative processes, and which could explain their bias against science fiction as all being nonsense. It also could be consistent with the association of anti-social where this weakness would inhibit strong social behavior. I've often worked with engineers and have known some scientists who are stronger in math than in intuitive logic, it seems to fit their consistency of biases that Iv'e noticed in general and also seems consistent with the "anti-social" association. It's just a thought that seems to make sense and produce consistent results, though I only have personal experience to base that on.

I guess I should have clarified that I just wanted to speak on the thread topic in general. These long threads can be too long to reference anything apecific and too long to make much of a contribution that resonates but sometimes something strikes someone profoundly.

Well, the mind is a big place. I was just touching on one small aspect of the it.

Cuteness isn't in the mind of the babies, it's in the mind of the ones who see them.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about our subconscious vs conscious minds and have concluded that our conscious mind is like an overlay on top of the subconscious mind added on later like early Windows used to be an overlay on top of DOS. We already know that the conscious mind evolved later out of a need to communicate with other humans. Further more I believe our conscious thinking process trains our subconscious mind how to think, which then is able to work repeatedly and automatically in the background. Therefore as we think consciously through a complex problem multiple times we are training our subconscious to take that same line or possibly even anticipate new lines of thinking automatically and persistently running in the background even in our sleep which explains why we often we wake up knowing the solution of a problem. This is also why epiphany is something that just occurs to us probably when the needed missing pieces fall into place but which also likely involves complex thinking ability. This could also be consistent with short and long termmemory working in a parallel process. or as working memory recalls required data as needed subconsciously

I just noticed the editing features that have been sorely missed for the iPad, and I'm terrible at recalling BB code from memory. Bravo!!! Editing from buttons is going to feel like a luxury feature! OK first editing bug, emoji inserts shifted that many spaces to the left when I attempted to insert at the end of the line. Oh, and a simple feature that goes a long way is expandable edit windows for those of us who need to constantly cut down oversized posts to more reasonable sizes.

Security protocols aren't based on anything but logic and math, and I'm highly gifted in logic, despite a learning disability connected with short term memory. I was solving logic problems at 4, llearned QM, SR,GR, Astronomy at 7, learned winning poker at 10, independantly developed a version of many worlds theory before knowing it was already done by the time I was 21. Many Worlds was a dismissed theory back then. I scored a near perfect score (1 wrong answer) in what was supposed to be an unbounded logic test that was based on speed at solving set theory problems. I had to be seriously gapped much higher than anyone in the history of that test for that to even happen or the test would have been designed to be a lot longer because I actually finished it early. But if computer tech is what you want to judge me on, while it's an incredibly broad field I have no real training in any field, but I train myself in the fields I work in as an autodiadact. I was hired as a sr system design engineer and promoted to sr staff (the highest tech position at the time which typically required a PHD but I got it based on accomplishments without a degree) including three years winning the top award given internally to one employee each year. I retired as the leading authority in the field of High Speed Digital Design with the possible exception of Dr Howard Johnson who was its founder. I developed the logical models, methods, and techniques that applied electromagnetic field theory properly to design and was able to make first hand prediction of anomalies instantly using my models while 6 figure field solvers took two days to solve a single component and with far less accuracy. The entire communications industry which is mostly Cisco and who have the most competant engineers in the industry IMO was brought to a complete halt for two years at the rollout of Gigabit Ethernet when not a single design world wide could pass EMI tests. My employer, Marvell Semiconductor entered into the Gigabit Ethernet market two years late, and all of my designs passed with perfect results validating my work developed ten years previously after which all major tech companies came to me for my help with their designs. I would note that every design review I did corrected their problems on the next revision in every single case which numbered in the hundreds or posible even over a thousand. Those numbers would have been a lot higher if the FAE engineers hadnt filterd most reviews themselves. Despite Marvel's late entry into that market we captured 80% of the enterprise market followed up with taking 80% of the client market. As soon as I left Marvell their market share of both markets fell to 20%. Post Retirement: original work that I've managed to solve in multiple fields which I learned as an autodiadact since retiring. Just prior to the rig-proof dealing method project I had made monumental break trhough discoveries in probability theory and combinatorics, though its never been recognized. Without a PHD I have no ability to publish, so I see no possible way that it could have been recognized. I couldn't even win any of the millenial prizes if I solved them according to their rules. I did independantly verify my results through Monty Carlo Method which is the common method used for validating probability. I found a more definitive solution to the Twin Paradox I discovered a feasible model for the mechanism behind my own 2e condition. Also created a feasible mechanism for how we use our subconscious works which has apparantly become accepted since doing so. Other unvalidated work includes solving a completely novel method for finding large prime numbers in real time using wave harmonics and local matrix referencing. my latest accomplishment is an unconfirmed solution to the Balance paradox which is a 5000 year old unsolved problem. Outside of proving the [non]existence of odd prime numbers I've never failed to solve a problem that I started working on including a logically consistent model of the TOE, unconfirmed of course. Sorry for going on, but I never compiled a list before now so I thought I may as well make it up to date. The points that I made had nothing to do with rig-proofing games or cheating in poker. They had to do with unlawful hacking and destruction of my life which only started with that single project and spread to include decades of projects on all of my local drives and cloud accounts. including projects I had intended to monetize since I retired to work on my own projects away from the corrupt practices in business. They also destroyed thousands of dollars in equipment was that justified? Are you saying that people who work on research projects deserved to be hacked? Are you saying that people who work at home are legitimate targets for the government? What exactly are your arguements bassed on? Your arguements are so randomly based on inconsequential facts that its hard not to see them as trolling. What the exactly are you trying to say with this bizarre random comment that has nothing to do with what I was saying?

Because I've had first hand experience with this. At the peak of my troubles with hacking and lets be frank, they weren't private hackers, they were elite hackers who could control commercial providers to also act against me. It was all started when i was creating a new method for dealing a rig-proof poker game for online poker, i.e. players all had a hand in shuffling the cards in a peer to peer platform that the poker site didn't control. I was developing it in a completely transparrent way in a poker theory forum with the help of members at a key time when many US state legislatures were looking at bringing poker back. It wasnt poker they were worried about. Around a year later after I realized it had to be NSA backed hackers using fisa warrants to get commercial companies to cooperate I took a closer look at that origional dealing platform. I realized that a peer to peer encripted messaging platform could be based on the same security protocols as the dealing platform back when they were shutting down any private security means or communication possible even shutting down small email providers in the process. link to the post discussed above, see end of thread to see my first comments on hackers: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15/poker-theory/rig-proofing-poker-sites-possible-1476320/ note: twoplustwo is still a private forum so I can still link to its threads which exist in a permanent archive. To keep it that way, please consider what it means if that Forum Thread link ever goes dead. If I can be hacked and have my ip stollen corrupted and destroyed and even have my hardware destroyed and stolen as well as financial accounts hacked, then it can happen to anyone because I'm about as boyscout as it gets. It makes me sick when people say they arent worried because they havent done anything to be worried about as if I did. So they were violating me in any and all ways possible 24/7. This included the stack exchange forums which had gobbled up all private forums by the hundreds. I could no longer get any tech help through any forum when I was auto-locked with every first post no matte how legitimate the question and I had been posting in forums since they started in the eitghties, so they all followed proper ettiquette and rules.

Wait what? Are you saying that these forums are no longer a private venture? That was the whole reason I chose to post here over the stack exchange conglomerate. Are you saying that science forums are now a property of another company like stack exchange? Why I find this to be a concern is that its exactly how we lost all reliabliity in mainstream news outlets when they all merged under single entities. Then there is only one source that could be leveraged by commercial or state entities to control all content. Public forums serve the same public need in many ways that those media outlets once did. Not only for the free exchange of ideas but for the protections that free public exchange grants us. It's far easier to oppress a society that has no free speech.

Ahh, I see. Thanks for the reply. I was just a little disoriented with the changes and thought that the feature had just disappeared entirely. As with any changes, one always notices what's different before noticing what's new or how it may improve the users experience. Thanks for the tips. BTW, another change I noticed was that my origional user name was different from my display name "TakenItSeriously". My login was always the origional name but this time it required my display name and found no account under my user name. This caused me quite a bit of concern because of persistant hackers that I have been dealing with for four years. and the login details would be the kind of thing that could have been overlooked assuming username and display name were the same. In many instances they have created false but functional commercial web pages to bypass internet security, limit my interface to the real commercial websites by acting as a man in the middle hack intercepting my data before passing it on like man in the browser mallware. They would then not only have full login access but even limit my options such as removing certain editing features such as blocking editing features to change emeail to more secure email, block changing password, block tighter security options. or redirect support to a non-associated fake support person. These threats are far more widespread then you may think created by state backed hackers as well as organized chrime rings. How can I guarantee that this is not a more extensive form of that kind of hack which could monitor or even limit or edit to misrepresent me and my free speech capability? Thanks for your time and attention.

I logged in today and I see an entirely new web page design with no notifications about it. The new design does not have the ability to show the users content which I find extremely inconvenient as I may have active threads in multiple forums and the users content is the best way to track my active threads. Otherwise I may not notice responses in certain threads. Doesn't anyone else find this very inconvenient?

It depends on if your adding or removing mass or force. But in the scenario where we remove our hand or remove mass from one pan in order to return the two pans to an equal and symmetrical state, then the CoM has not accelerated it has simply changed location in accordance to the new distribution of mass to somewhere along the vertical center line. Any acceleration is done off system such as removing the mass. However their is a reaction to this change which is the rotation of the cross bar back to horrizontal. Its more useful to compare the the states along points in time. with Unbalanced forces The bar is in a slanted state half above and half below the pivot and the tension on the coords are vertical but no longer in allignment with the lever forces that have rotated with the levers. Therefore their is a delta force that fits in the gap head to toe between the lever and gravity forces on both sides of the balance, but it is important to note that the delta forces are pointed in opposite directions. Therefore their is no lateral displacement or acceleration force. With balanced forces at its initial unbalanced, assymetrical state, and rotated state The instant you unload one side to have equal masses, the delta forces are no longer resisting the unballenced forces and the frame starts rotating back to horizontal to reduce those delta forces. Why the delta forces reduce is because they are now only their due to frame rotation and not to offset the asymetrical loading. The balance wants to return to the state of lowest energy where delta forces are zero the frame rotation is zero and the system is symmetrical. When returning we see the classical overshoot and the two pans will oscilate up and down in a decaying fournier series, just like would happen with a spring. So loading one side of a balance rotates the balance to a greater energy state like a wind up toy. unloading the balance allows the balance to unwind back to its lowest energy state..

I highlighted every reference to the gravity force, I made one typo where I said net force instead of lever force which I corrected in red, but I'm not sure hoy how you interpreted anything that is in disagreement with gravity forces pointing down. This is simple Newtonian physics.The force the pivot has on the cross bar is the offsetting force that points straight up and offsets the weight of the system which includes the weight of the cross bar two pans the chain or coord that suspends the pans and any extra forces or masses acting on those pans.

The real force is always pointed straight down. However the force that acts on the balance is the lever force which is always perpendicular to the cross bar. if the cross bar is crooked or its not perpendicular to the gravity force then the net force and the gravity force are seperated by a delta force When the masses are equal then the cross bar is already horizontal and there is no need for a returning force. I was showing what happens the instant after the unequal masses become equal when the cross bar is not horizontal. then the delta force is the returning force so as the cross bar approaches the horrizontal the delta force approaches zero. when the delta force is zero, then the gravity force is equal to the lever force and they both point straight down but that only happens when the bar is horrizontal.

As I understand it, how a space probe gets some net gain in speed from a gravity assist is that the probe does a near flyby crossing behind the orbital motion of the planet. Because the probes flyby is behind the planets orbital motion therefore the planet slows down an infinitessimal small amount but the probes momentum is curved towards the motion of the planet so its direction is changed but also its net velocity is considerably greater. Or at least thats what I think must be happening from various graphic representations that I've seen.

I can see how that works for a static system but for a dynamic system, saying where the center of mass will be before reaching equilibrium seems circular. Using my solution, you can explicitely show why the torque forces exist. I guess I'm saying that because the torque forces do exist your solution should always be right but it doesn't necessarily explain the mechanism of why the torque forces exist. Its just confirming results that we already knew. That the balances returns to equilibrium. Consistently defining the lever and gravitational forces as far as which were components was my initial assumption as well but it never allowed for consistent results. You can think of it this way. F1 > F2 while F1L = F2L = FL this implies that FL is inbetween the two real forces FL < F1 but FL > F2 so the larger of the forces is what must be the hypoteneuse It's asymetrical, but so is an unbalanced result. edited out joke after I realized where I was posting this, LOL, no offense if you saw it. edit to add: after seeing your model, I noticed that you did not make the lever forces equal. i.e. no equilibrium. That would imply the balance arrm is spinning and never stops spinning.

I always avoided anything on relativistic electromagnetism because it seemed like confusion squared, so I may be asking a naive question but does't Gause's law say mangnetic monopoles can't exist?

I can't tell what your trying to represent, did you leave out some vectors that quantitatively cancel out?

I already posted it with my solution to the paradox but here it is again. You need to show the gravitational forces in terms of their forces perpendicular to each lever arm. so if you say F₁ > F₂ then there must be a right triangle where we see a lever component that is perpendicular to the lever. We also see a ΔF component which is perpendicular to the lever force. which creates the three sides of the triangle. offset due to ΔF > 0 On the right side the right angle is between the smaller gravitational force and ΔF so the ΔF is representational of the offset. Note that ΔF is not the same on both sides of the level but its very close. As the rotation of the system rotation gets closer to 90° then it is more significant and you can calculate it using the lorentz transformation.

Interesting question, although I don't know what you mean by distinction. If you look at the simple form of the solution that I posted then it ahould be apparrent that forces scale in the near field of gravity. if you are talking about scales that go beyond the scale of our solar system for example then I'd be afraid of sounding too stupid to venture a guess. Or if Iwas too stupid to not venture a crazy guess, for example, I would try to think in terms of a circuit board to try and consider how the near field and the far field forces intersect. in that environment. ... Edit to add So apparantly there are still real world problems in science that havent been solved yet or was that the last one? Is anyone aware of any other real world paradoxes that haven't been solved yet? I'm only speaking of physical problems in common human experience.

The Balance Paradox. Axiomatic Logical Model explained. The restoring force is demonstrated by the two lever forces that must always act perpendicularly to the lever and equal to each other. On the left side the gravitational force is the larger force that is composed of the Lever Force component and ΔF component. On the right side the Lever Force is the combination of the gravity force and ΔF Pushing on one side causes the lever force to rotate with the cross bar while keeping the lever forces equal at all times. After releasing the balance then the lever forces must be must still be equal but without the delta comopnents meaning the offsets must drop to 0.

Manticore has it right I think. Pans will end up hanging down from cross beam by something like a chain like the scales of justice as the stereotype I was going for, Also needed some clean lines to show vectors. OP did meantion old style and I'm all about old school Sorry, you were referencing another post, never mind.

Posting before reading some earlier replies but I wanted to post before getting some sleep. I think I dierrived the equation. So I started where I left off with the three variables on either side of the equation. where L canceled out so Δm ∝ Δy somehow with both being 0 at the horizontal. Funny thing was I did have a flash back to this problem in a physics lecture at one point, probably physics 101 and the lechturer said something about this kind of problem. I asked him if there shouldnt be a y offset in the problem and not just a force and lever arm. He told me I was right then left it at that with out showing how it fit in the formula. It seemed strange but I guess I assumed it was in the text and I forgot all about it until now. That's why I remembered those three terms in a formula but couldnt remember the formula. lol. I tried to remember the formula kind of derriving it in my head thinking it would come to me and it couldnt be that hard so I incorrectly assumed the sine and cosine functions were part of the formula. But I correctly assumed that the lever force was perpendicular to the lever so it had to be a component of gravity. After I saw that it was never derrived, I changed my assumption that it couldnt be that easy after all, but still with three terms I figured I could find them in a diagram which I started here. Before I finished diagraming I realized I was doing the light clock derrivation or at least some close variant i.e. similar right triangles Pythagorean theorem. I honestly don't know the derrivation by heart but I have it somewhere. I know it was in my intuitive model of SR post. The gravity force has two components: the lever force which must be perpendicular to the lever arm and the y offset was shown as the second component through a similar triangles across the cross bar. Any way if you look at the boundary conditions at 0° and 90° the lever force transitions to Y offset. it seems to be analogous to space transition to time. I'm nearly certain that the balance equation is the lorentz transformation but I need to get some sleep before I take on that transformation which is kind of tricky math. I'll finish it up tomorrow.