CasualKilla

How would a organism with a equivalent intellect to human develop technology underwater. For example, on a planet with no land. Would they be able to achieve human like technological advancement, or will they be limited by having to work underwater? I imagine an octopus like creature with very good object manipulation ability may stand the best chance, but underwater computers wtf?!? Another question, imagine a species was 50% smarter than human on average, with the ability to communicate and collaborate the same or better than humans, but it had the body of say a dolphin, could they ever even develop computing or eventually leave their planet? Sorry, wasn't sure which section to post this, but it seems biologist could give some good opinions about the ability and environment of these hypothetical creatures.

Just post all the information you can or you feel comfortable with. People here are open to new ideas, but you will need to substantiate them with data.

I am just adding some mild skepticism, but havn't galaxys been simulated and showed Keplerian behavior, without presence of added mass?

I actually ended up having this exact question in my test, so good thing we discussed it "Explain the NMOS operation with use of diagrams. Draw the MOSFET in saturation region, and explain it's operation." (not exact wording). We are starting frequency response of mosfets next semester, so I assume we will cover much of that stuff then. It is sometimes disappointing since we don't cover the physics in much detail and often end up with little fundamental understanding, but rather the ability to find the gains, currents, voltages etc of a 4 transistor circuits, (big woop since spice does it in 2s) as with BJTs last year. Edit: I see your point about the Vgs already being setup to skip the whole repelling holes step and start straight with electron attraction. I guess this corresponds to Vtn=0 or near 0.

It is a logical conclusion of the theory, of-course there is a reason to think it existed.. If not a singularity, then what do you propose? Or are you happy to deny the idea of a singularity but not propose a counter hypothesis?

After sleeping on it, i came to the following conclusion, so I am going to yolo it. N-type enhancement mode NMOS I am gonna go with this: As Vgs increases the holes in the p-type region will decrease, creating a negative channel in the p-type materiel. This will only happen up till a point where there are no more "free" positive charges. After this point, to make the channel more negative (to match the positive gate voltage on other plate) electrons will need to be pulled from the surrounding materials, most likely the N-type drain and source. This will turn the p-type majority carrier hole materiel into an effective n-type majority carrier electron materiel. The more electrons are pulled into this region, the better conductivity the channel will have, and the more current will be allowed to flow from drain to source.

The problem with that thinking is you cannot explain why the universe should begin with a big bang, because you have banded the realm of existence within the singularity and the expansion of the singularity. You avoid even having to explain the cause of the singularity because if isolated, it can have no cause. I think it is perfectly valid to ask how the singularity was created, or why it existed, because as I have already shown, just because something is devoid of time, does not mean it cannot interact with TEE's and is except from causality. I cannot accept that something just existed without cause, unless said thing is almost irreducible simple.

I understand the mechanism that charges the p-type substrate, and also that a Vds is needed to create a current, but I get confused, because it seems the electrons must flow through a negatively charged p-type substrate, how to we go from a majority carrier of holes to a majority carrier electrons? I visualize the holes being repeled away from the side closest to the gate, creating a negative charge, but I don't know how this charge translates to an increase of majority carrier electrons. Or is the purpose of the gate voltage to simply kill the depletion region and still use holes as the majority carrier for the current?

True, but that is only if you assume the universe is the only thing that exists. Surly it is still viable that the singularity existed on/in a braine in a higher dimensional plain? I don't see a problem with singularity that does not experience time, isn't that what a blackhole is? I guess the difference would be a blackhole does not contain infinite energy, but then again, do we know if our universe contains infinite energy?

It is mind bending to think about it since, it is highly probable time itself did not exist before the big bang, that probably means the singularity was created and destroyed/expanded in the same instant, similar to how a photon is created and destroyed in the same instant relative to itself. But then again, photons don't experience time, and they exist happily and interact with a world that does experience time. It must be possible that the singularity could have existed in a similar environment where it interacted with time experiencing entities (TEE's ) So I think it is possible the singularity existed for a finite amount of time relative to some external object/environment and maby even interacted with it.

Yes that was my argument right there, just wanting to confirm. Thank you, that probably explains where he got the idea from. Interesting read. Rocket science, nice! Yes, it seems efficiency would need to be defined relative to some other object. Which seems rather strange. I guess takeoff location makes the most sense? I guess it may be better defined as efficiency towards object A, U is the speed object A is moving towards the rocket, and c is the exhaust speed relative to the rocket?

I have an electronics test tomorrow, and I got most the the theory down, but if we quickly consider a N type mosfet with a positive Vgs is applied, the positive holes in the P-type channel are repelled, thus the area becomes negatively charged (or is it more accurate to say electrons are attracted to the area??), but this does not necessarily mean there are free electrons to carry the current does it? Where do the charge carriers come from? I watch a youtube video that says electrons are attracted to the region, which doesn't make sense after the channel has been negatively charged, since it will repel electrons. Thanks in advance!

Because I was not born with the understanding of electromagnetism, we all have to start somewhere don't we? All I am claiming is to be smarter than a cat, why so hostile?

Compared to a cat, I would hope so.

You are all wrong since you are assuming the cats are trying to orientate in a certain direction, when in-fact they are still trying to figure out which side it up. If we asked Usane Bolt why he ran so fast, and he said because I do backwards running exercises to build up neglected muscle area, but several biologists say that that type of training actually slows you down because you build up extra weight that is not used in forward running. (this is all made up, but hopefully u get my point). Do you believe Usane because he is the fastest man in the world, or do you believe the biologists who spend there life studying the human body? #wrecked

He traveled to an identical parallel universe that split off from the main timeline the moment the time-traveler arrived.I believe that alternate version should have attempted to travel back in time, unless the time traveler somehow disrupted him within those 3 seconds. U can only do TT like I proposed, else too many paradoxes that can exist.

Acme, the majority of your pictures are broken links . That is a huge worm, no wonder the majority of your grass is dead.

Is there a maximum speed for rockets? I have a recurring argument with one of my friends who claims that the speed of which particles leave the rocket limits the maximum speed. My reasoning is that the thrust particles will always the leave rocket at a backwards velocity relative to the rocket, thus one can achieve acceleration at all speed less than c.

Agreed, it is rather uplifting to think that progress is made by perseverance rather than pure genius. Was Netwon a genius, or just utterly obsessed with learning? The fact that he truly believed some ludicrous pseudoscience leads me to the former. Good point about the clock

It is very likely he came across the phenomenon by pure chance in his many many field of interest. Newton pretty much had no life and spent all his time studying things from alchemy, prophecy and biblical studies. There is even evidence that Hook proposed the inverse square law, before witch newton assumed a constant gravitational force. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies We can't deny newton made some excellent observations and discoveries, but even a broken clock is right once a year. You will be surprised how many things he was wrong about.

When I begin simulating I will create an optimized single carrier rotor and compare it with multi-carrier or Vagati design. That handbook seems to indicate I will be able to get 2/3 times the torque for the same frequency and voltage stator design, but if you say I should be skeptical, I will, a little skepticism never hurts. Do you have any idea what the meaning is of the Iq and Id current from the dq transform. Could I visualize these as DC electromagnets position in the q and d directions? If yes, why are there 2 currents? I thought the stator could be visualized as a single rotating magnet, which would corresponds to one one current in d-axis.

Yes I mean after you factor out signal delay, trying to avoid doppler and light propagation since it is complicating the issue. Ah ok, it finally clicked, thanks for clearing that up. Well written, thanks.

+1 Janus, that is exactly the explanation I needed to get around the confusion caused by the propagation of light signals, Doppler effect and was just very well rounded in general, thankyou. Ok I can get down with the say 12:00 "event" being observed at different times for each clock from the spaceship, but what about the clock periods? (since TD factor is only depended on relative speed)? If we observe clock 1 from the spaceship, will we see a constant period, or will it change depending on our distance from the earth and whether we move away or towards it?

Still stand by that. Ok no hard feelings then, you don't have to respond if you don't want to.

That is because the cats are too stupid, trust me it works