casrip1@gmx.com

so today i was think, and then i thought about thinking... literally... before continuing, take a couple minutes right now and think about something, anything now think: the thought you just thought of was thought up in a language you speak... language is something we use to communicate our thoughts to someone else. so why would we need language to think for ourselves. so when we think we're thinking, we're not really thinking, but talking to our brain, who is actually doing the thinking and then putting those thoughts into words so that we can understand what it (the brain) is thinking... so we have no idea of what we're thinking about except that which our brain decides to let us know by translating it to a language we can understand

i think this is a lovely video that you will enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxJ4M7tyLRE it answers exactly what you ask

hey guys, i'm planning out a model rocket design with store-bought motors (unfortunately i can't get my hands on any oxidizers, stupid canadian law...) and i'm planning to go with a cluster motor design because i plan on sending some payload. i'm planning on using 3 estes e12-0 standard motors (those are the strongest e-type motors right?) what i'm wondering is what type of mounting design should i use. i have two ideas: 1. put in 3 motors evenly spread out, tilted parallel to the tangent of the circle. 2. 3 motors evenly spread out, tilted both, parallel to the tangent of the circle as well as perpendicular to the tangent of the circle. i don't know if that made much, if any sense... by circle, i refer to the body of the rocket. by moving it parallel to the tangent of the shape of the body, it adds a simple tilt in the motor placement which should cause the rocket to spin to increase stability (think of it as mounting the motors tilted on the sides of a triangular prism). by moving the motor in parallel AND perpendicular to the tangent, i feel like it would add even more stability but i'm not sure (think of it as mounting the motors tilted on the sides of a tetrahedron) which of the 2 placements sound better to you guys? also, this rocket design will be a non-recovery type; more specifically, i plan on making the rocket split in mid air into 2 pieces, exposing the payload in mid-air. so i'm wondering, can i drill into the backs of the rocket motors (in the end cap) in order to insert a fuse which would light up when the motor runs out of propellant? this fuse would run along the side of the rocket body (which would be pre-cut in half and taped together with the fuse running along the tape) so when this fuse ignites it will basically split the rocket in two (by burning off the tape). then, i could place a small charge above/below the payload with a fuse leading to a 2nd motor with a slightly longer fuse than the first fuse (separation fuse). this would give the first fuse the time to separate the rocket into two, and then the small charge would ignite and push the 2 sides of the rocket body apart, exposing the payload. i'm totally in love with the idea of working with multi-sequence rocket designs and eventually i wanna get to a point where i could launch a rocket into the air, have it split and then have the payload deploy (or perhaps, maybe have the payload carry another motor to take it further, or whatever). so does the design plan so far sound like something that can be successfully implemented into an amateur model rocket? keeping in mind this rocket will be no longer than 2 feet.

i recently realized that although i've known forever that memory exists only as a base 2 to the power of x (128, 256, 512, 1024 etc) , i've never quite learned why... so why can't we have 500GB or 1000GB? why must it be 512GB or 1024GB instead?.

lol you guys are missing the point here, the idea is to brainstorm what would happen. you gotta try and process this without the actual experiment (doing mental experiments to determine the outcome )

this notion has been bugging me since forever and i like to think of it as (sort of) a paradox... take a high intensity laser pointer, hook it up with a light sensitive switch, and program it so that when the light sensitive switch is hit with light, the circuit is open and the laser will turn off. now go in a dark room, and point the laser pointer (which should now be nice and bright) on the light sensitive switch. it sort of creates a paradoxical event because if the laser is on, the switch is told that there is no need for the laser to be on, but as soon as it would turn off the light sensitive switch would close the circuit, turning the laser back on. thus creating a cycle of continuous repetition; an infinite loop, if you will... what do you guys think world happen? and how would it look; would the laser be on like it normally would? or will it flicker? or will it be stable at a lower intensity? i would test it out but i don't really know how to work with a light sensitive switch (i believe it requires some sort of circuitry)

so you're saying 1/(1+x) where x is one of these series is what you are using to get the answer for the series? if so then thats not really the answer for the series, thats the answer of 1/(1+series). i meant for a discussion about the series itself, not some function of it

i'm sorry, but did you just state 1 + 1 + 1 + ... = -1/2 and 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 and 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + ... = -1? could you please elaborate how an infinite sum gave you an answer smaller than the smallest number in the series (1)? and try to use terminology understandable by a mediocre high school student. and as for the 3rd paragraph, i understood about as much as an ant (assumingly) understands about the vastness of the universe

saw this very interesting video: and wanted to share/talk about it in a place without 500 character limit lol i personally believe the answer can be considered undetermined, or both 0 and 1. to have a definite answer, we gotta know the number of 1's we have, and the operation sign we start with. starting with a - sign and having odd number of 1's means you have the final answer = 1 (1 - 1 + 1 = 1) and having even number of 1's means you have final answer = 0 (1 - 1 + 1 - 1 = 0). infinite, by oxford's definition means "impossible to measure or calculate" which means there is an undetermined numbers of 1's involved. to want an definite answer is to collapse the infinity and assign it a finite numbers of 1's (either an odd or an even number) which would give you the answer of 1 or 0 respectively (assuming starting operation is - ). so the answer can be assumed to exist in a superposition of both 0 and 1 and it will randomly result in either 1 or 0 depending on the number of 1's once the infinity is collapsed. sound familiar? (Schrodinger's cat)

right, i meant change in t, forgot since in general we used t to represent (delta)t as we always set t1 = 0 (thats how its been throughout the whole high school) also, could you confirm whether 2 and 3 are correct? if they are, then all my confusions have cleared for the moment, if not, well s**t...

if i have a load with energy consumption of 2watts per hour, does that mean a 2 watt output with 4 volts and .5amps and a 2 watt output with 2 volts and 1amp both be able to power the device for an hour? or is there more to it than just having the same wattage? would i have to have a way to convert the volts to amps or amps to volts for an optimum operation?

correct or incorrect: 1. |impact force| = |impulse| [(p2-p1)/t] where p = momentum 2. mgh = impact force given terminal velocity is not reached 3. mgh =/= impact force given terminal velocity is achieved midway though the fall (as the potential energy after terminal velocity would be converted into heat instead of velocity)

hey guys, as far as i know the impact force depends on velocity just before impact (its the impulse of the crash right?). http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/flobi.html this website uses mgh to calculate impact force. so if mgh can be used to calculate impact force, does that mean there is a maximum cap on the potential energy based on terminal velocity? i'm sure i'm mixing up a lot of things here, so if someone here who knows the relation between the 3 concepts (mgh, TV and IF) please explain to me the relationship of these 3 forces?

screw this, finishing monofilament method it is jk, the magnetic is perfect, just what i was looking for. ill just attach the magnet to the door and the switch parallel to it, and then run the wire inside and setup a simple circuit. thanks everyone for your ideas and input

@Externet, my parents don't turst me enough to mess with the internal circuitry of the system, and i don't trust myself enough to mess in there either. so i gotta build an external circuit MacGyver style. i was thinking of using an IC555 like in this circuit http://bit.ly/1c3SkA5 BUT replacing the speaker with the LED1 and LDR with a simple switch which would connect to the door. once the door opens, the circuit breaks, and the designated light turns on.