DevilSolution

I understand your analogy but if you have placed 2 membrane caps on the pipe then the water is locked within those caps? Although i understand the shaking of the membranes, would it also make sense to say something like tilting the pipe on the x axis would change the direction? Still confused about the caps. As to regards to your second quote that actually clears things up alot. Because in DC a battery is classically shown as an example and i automatically presumed electron transfer due to the chemistry of the metal electrodes and the solution. However its an ionic reaction, a charge is carried through the wire to the component which uses the ions, then as the solute reacts with metal the solvent becomes neutral, eventually ionizing all its chemical energy into the component. (My chemistry book actually said electrons move through the circuit) So if they only bump into each other then firsly theres no electron transfer which answers my second main question and secondly electrical current is the amount of electrons that bump into each other on the atomic level. It is like you said almost like a constant vibration of electrons. Caused by the magnet. I see.

Sorry when you say direction how is that relative to amps? (With my presumption that amps equate the "amount" of electrons). Or do i have a misconception of amps? Just read up on wiki and amps are directly proportional to the amount of electrons. Okay so its electrons per second...or coulombs. It does say "the flow rate of charge", but i still dont understand it having direction. I'll do some more reading. Regards. Sorry just to clarify exactly what im missing is that if 1 cycle is +180 and -180, the net electron "amount" or "flow" is 0. No elecrons would move down the wire in a single cycle? After a little more reading it is the volt that alternates, from the sine waveform and then alters the charges direction. I think i understand now because volts dont "push" exactly they hold the potential for the energy to flow, its relative to distance of an amp losing 1 watt over 2 potential points. Because distance is involved direction is relative. And because volts explain the potential for the energy to flow instead of actually being that "push" force, amps can flow down the wire with this potential force directly related to it. I guess if the voltage potential is above the sine waveform then it would have a probable direction? I also guess copper being so conductive and a good magnet you should have a high potential for the electrons to move? Just a side note; if per cycle the potential goes +180 then why not release the amps in the + direction of the coil and when its -180 have it come out the opposite end of the coil? And more importantly where are these electrons coming from?

Timo was right about standard deviation i think, just the precision of my phone. Another question as far as angles go. For my purposes i can use pythag to find the hyp instead of opp/sin(x) however for example the adj is always 1 and the opp very small such as 0.004. Which again 0.004 * 0.004 = 0.000016. Now if a = adj, b = opp and c = ? Then a^2 - c^2 = b^2 wouldnt work and b^2 - c^2 = a^2 would make c less than 1 everytime. Doing c^2 =((a*10^5)^2 + (b*10^5)^2) / 10^5 and finally sqrt© gives a number marginally bigger than 1, 1.000079997 to be exact. Does that seem correct? Im starting to understand the relationship between numbers less than 0 in relation to numbers above. Its just quantifying things in the form you want.

The polarity of what? The voltage or current?

Okay so i just read an interesting article on a new superconductor that acts as an insulator, superconductor, metal and magnet aswell as having a very low critical temprature. Now i started investigating exactly what this means, its all very counter intuitive. Im presuming these properties exist in different conditions. The article got me reading into these various properties and i eventually got confused with some of the basic stuff. For example if a super conductor has no resistence at all then ohms law no longer works? Its also got me confused as to the exact nature of volts and amps as i interpreted them. So it took me back to some of my roots in elecrics, specifically when creating AC electricity. Is it the voltage that alternates direction? Because from what i know of electrics the voltage is the force that "pushes" the amps. And amps can be seen as the "amount" of electrons. Therefor you cant have a negative current? In any instance having a negative voltage would mean that the total output would be 0 with 1 cycle giving +180 and -180. The same applies to amps, you'd generate 180 spare electrons then take them back? I think perhaps its my comprehension of volts and amps because i know volts are used as "potential difference" between 2 points, but the the potential difference of what? Speed? Ionic charge at those nodes? Another noob question: If the electrons are being sent down the copper coil and the coil is finite (has a starting point) where are these electrons coming from? I understand that the mechanical energy is being tranformed into electrical i just dont understand where these electrons are coming from. Im guessing the electrons arent coming from the copper or it would change its chemical composition and also eventually run dry. Therefor im presuming the magnet is having some abstract effect on the copper, like taking electrons from nearby atoms or molecules with a high electronegativity? There must be loads floating in the atmosphere + it could stablize the atom but give it an ionic charge (like taking an electron from potassium, giving it the stable valence shell but with the -1 charge). Or is there some electromagnetic relation or force at play? Finally any ideas of how usefull this new metal could be? (Other than obviously saving energy which is like over 7% loss in heat i think). Heres the link to the article, i guess you guys will make more sense of it than me: http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-discovered-a-new-state-of-matter-the-jahn-teller-effect Regards, devilsolution.

21st century exodus. Whos a migrant, whos a refugee? Weve been bombing syria, iraq, afghan etc. What would you do? America knows what its doing. Islam is being outcast by the west, those migrating will feel the right hand before the left.

We're all slaves. Someone has to be the master...........

Proxy war. Print more money Buy more shit. (All said in a rorschach voice).... And aye those Saudis and Iranians who now have major sanctions dropped unlike there ties with Russia. They supply this never ending war with oil money. China are set and the stage awaits. China plays by the rules (or so it should). There's no bubble only sentiment and demand, this has been caused by more than you may care to believe. And hey I wouldn't rattles someone's cage who's 5 times my size and half as smart. There's an equation in here somewhere. Keep pumping the money out, keep feeding the beast......

Ahh but it's all for face value other than the people who vote. And yes that's how Jews gained a lot of monetary control. Maybe rumour maybe myth but isn't it like 2% of the population are Jewish and near 20% of senate.

Self preservation is primary. Of the language, the ideologies and the family. Americas biggest problem is the capitalist system it has spread to the world. Don't get me wrong I don't hate on capitalism but quantatively easing the stock markets while having economic proxy wars with countries that they then turn round too, print more dollars and pretend like they hadn't caused it. Gain hugely from it. Feed from it. Then you have fucked up internal affairs from the NSA to racial unrest, gun crime and religious bureacuracy running the whole show. I'll stick with self preservation.

Having a hard time quantifying certain equations because most the values are below 1. One issue is standard deviation, simple enough but when squaring these numbers they get smaller etc...Also working with angles below 1 degree. For some reason doing opp/sin(x) gives a hypotenuse barely 4^-10 over the adjacent. I've tried a few basic things..multiply by say 100000 then divide by a multiplier that counts the resulting exponent (with standard deviation). Is there a particular trick to working with values below 1? As a side note 3162 is my new favourite number. Regards.

Quantative trading. Computer science isn't as difficult as some other subjects but there are certainly complex areas. If you want a job problem solving and sitting at a desk a lot then go for it. There's plenty of opportunity.

I've got a good book on the basis for chemistry, haven't got close to finishing it however. I like the way you can imagine that (almost) everything in existence is formed from some very basic principles. Not quite got into organic chemistry yet but carbon chains and functional groups make sense. Books are probably best, online learning seems for me at least to make procrastination easier.

The only logical falacy here is that "Nothings greater than god", hower the prefix "There is" is missed out which from a ourely mathematical perspective clears things up. 1 (anything) > 0 (nothing) 0 (nothing) > ? (god) so 1 > 0 > ? Realistically the expression is: 1 > 0 (There is) 1 != ? (God) Hence ? > 1 soo ? > 1 > 0

Well the high and low always get very close 1000 and 1100 after 100 runs too, ive not seen a run with a low higher than 1010, the interface for scilab is pretty poor for debugging purposes but very easy language to start doin math in quickly, i can use python, java and c but presumed this issue may be generic. I can apply my own logic to the random numbers to get the freak results i require but it just seemed strange how over a large set of data the random function seems somewhat predictable.

Hi guys, just doin some number crunching on some "data sets" that im creating using the random function (in scilab), now the values vary from 1000 to 1100 and im using some basic logic on these values. Now whats striking me as odd is that although ive done exstensive tests the results always give a similar mean, not a single run has thrown out say numbers over 1050 even 20 times in a row, i know its the law of probability but should i not see some freak results atleast once? I would prefer not to apply my own logic to get irregularities if possible but thus far the "randomness" is pretty predictable.

No the original post simply implies that the creation (hence creator) is an illogical construct. I think it strayed into the realms of what may be described as a penthiestic logical debate.

A subset of anything refers to that object, a subset of fruit is apple....i express the object as a logical exprssion that defines everything in the universe. Does a subset of this object go against linguistic sense? The leaps are my fault but obviously in my head it already makes sense, and im also on a mobile device which makes it more difficult.

Most people dont like to believe in god because it implies belief in some relious branch, which is swamped in fairy tales (parables) which usually acively contradict science, this ovourse "usually" seperates them from any sort of spiritual belelief that can come from believing in god without having to pin your badge to any particular religion. Is there any science that isnt logical? Thi seems to be a very simlar statement to my first post....

I make leaps that refer to a previous post that "if everything in the universe could be shown in a single logical expression", if you had read it perhaps you would hav grasped the meaning behind tht jumble of words. I appreciate your patience with (fellow?) polyglots. In the reply to strange, i explain how taking a subset of logic from the whole expression is subjecting it and hence distorting it (taking it out of context). Lets hope this clears your misunderstanding.

Well its been rephrased, and im sure he can answer for himself, you can be subtle with sarcasm. Generally the more witty the person the less obvious the sarcastic approach. Also you replied to a totally unrelated comment to the one i answered yours with......why?

By using it out of context, i stated that if everything in the universe could be defined as single expression then that would be the objective perspective, subjective is any subset of that logic, by using logic subjectively you obscure it from the objctive truth... if i wasnt on a mobile device i would construct the concept more clearly but i really cant be bothered right now. MigL WITHOUT calling you pathetic, what did your comment hope to achieve? Are you being pedantic or sarcastic?

Your religion is just part of a larger expression, taking it out is subjecting it, taking it out of context, the real context is the full expression. You cant reduce the value of logic, it is what is, it gives itself value.

Now your distorting the logic, the logical outcome is obviois but the creation of the statement is logical. You could only makethat statement because logic dictated you could. and it on reduces the value subjectively, objectively, if possible, theres a lot of opportunity.

So if for arguments sake we all observed a flying spaghetti monster? it would prove its existence? even if our EM sensors didnt tingle? yes empirical data has credit, but so do illusions. amen