April 12th, 2008, 07:10 PM
Hi guys!
I don't mean to sound thick here, but I have searched and searched but still cannot find a simple, basic explanation of the Higgs Boson.
I am very curious to know what it is exactly, so I would relaly appreciate it if one of you out there would be kind enough to enlighten me and give me a basic understanding of the Higgs Boson.
Thanks guys, hope to hear soon
I have not looked into it in great depth but I believe the Higgs Boson is a theoretical type of Boson, or elementary particle, that gives objects their mass.
I learned a rather simple way to understand the atom. I as taught much like Benjamin Franklin had apparently figured out. That matter was in fact electrical in nature. He and many other concluded that matter was in fact particles of electricity.Originally Posted by BumFluff
Electricity was a weightless massless substance. This was easily demonstrated. The one that today you do not get to hear anymore, is the explanation that protons are just balls of electrons.
Electrons never touch one another. They have one kind of a charge repel. The protons are held in spherical shape, by ambient radiation that passes easily through all matter that is only 10 percent solid. Matter is or was considered to be 90 percent space.
Ambient radiation moves so fast that we can only detect it, if we create a diode of some sort and slow it down, by deflecting it. Ambient radiation bombards the universe from all sides, in all directions simultaneously.
If you slow down ambient radiation to much, it will remove the object, by explosion. That is all a bomb is, the removal of a high voltage area.
This is how I was taught that weightless massless electrons create the illusion of mass and weight. While they are in the proton, in numbers. I was told, there was an infinite number of electrons.
Because we could not even see one, much less count how many there are. The number of electrons were compared to the number of atoms in the sun. Infinite.
Here is a demonstration that you can do to show how a massless electron, can create mass and weight, through a number of energy/velocity, transfers in the proton. You can see in the animation and then the actual movie how this is plausible. No increase in mass, yet a consumption, of applied energy, or better put velocity.
http://www.Rockwelder.com/Flash/Ball...lsandTime.html
http://www.Rockwelder.com/Flash/Ball...sAndAtoms.html
A lady can always say she weighs less then that.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
Everything massive (having mass) is made of bosuns, and bosuns themselves are massive. So that aspect is, same old , same old. Bosuns might behave oddly though.
A bosun will act particularly oddly if you get him drunk. Best thing to do is put 'im in the longboat until he's sober.
Thanks for the explanation William, im still trynna get my head round it though!
Cheers everybody
No! Don't listen to William! It is his own little theory which incidentally is absolutely wrong.
Rather take a look here for an introduction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson
Peace
With a hypothetical particle like the Higgins bosun, discovered now. I am surprised the theory of pool tables is even considered reality.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
Oh, if we had a few more individuals like yourself, around in the late sixties and early seventies. That could get past not being able to see the electron ever. We would have one of the most outrageous places to live.
Do you know that many newer scientists thought it was a government conspiracy group saying you will never be able to see a singular electron.
With all the amazing things coming to light in a few years time. They almost rightly thought, that surly in a few months or years, we could see one. But the iron fist of the Universal Scientist that often did pound to a governmental drum. Just said, NO! NEVER!
In a way the Universal Scientists were right, because you could never prove that. But I do not believe that they gave enough analogies to let the average guy understand how and why, they came to their conclusions. Poor communication.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
The best way to think of a boson is to think of a photon, as it is a typical example. Bosons are all spin 1 objects, and are supposed to be massless. The Higgs boson however, is presented as the link between mass and masslessness and should be very massive. That is why the current search for it is being done at the LHC where only it can achieve the supposed energy of its creation. This is the Standard Model view.
My ultrawave theory shows that all bosons have mass and so no such thing as the Higgs boson need exist. I'm not saying that they won't find parrticles at the energy level being examined, it just won't be a Higgs boson.
Isn't the higgs supposed to be vacuum energy or something like that? Think I saw a video about it. You could apparantly (theoretically) turn off and on the higgs field and something would happen, can't remember. Supposedly the big bang happened when the higgs field was turned on? Tell me if I'm very, very, very wrong please.
April 30th, 2008, 12:29 PM
In the universe, there is instability where symmetry exists. so, it tries to move towards stability and , in this process, loses some of its symmetry.
This is spontaneous symmetry breaking. and the way this happens is dependent on many conditions like region, time, temperature, etc.
In spontaneous symmetry breaking, there is a physical qty whose value signals that symmetry is breaking and how. This is called the HIGGS FIELD. In quantum field theory, we hear of fields (eg. EM, nuclear forces, gravity field ) being present due to interaction thru bosons. So, Higgs field has its own boson, called the Higgs boson
PritishKamat, good job.
theory? You are a kind and generous person.
The Higgs boson is one place to look for clues about where to go from the Standard Model. Therefore the biggest hope is not that they will find it where the Standard Model predicts, but just the opposite. Scientists have been hoping to poke a hole in the Standard Model for some time. Looks to me like, if they do not find the Higgs boson under 144 GeV then this pokes a hole in the Standard Model through which physicists could look for the clues they need in their efforts to solve the puzzle of quantum gravity.
I hear that the Higgs boson needs a stable value of mass, to prevent it from reaching Planck's mass due to spontaneous symmetry breaking.
You guys are pretty funny. To think that we do not know what we are talking about.PritishKamat, good job.
theory? You are a kind and generous person.
The Higgs boson is one place to look for clues about where to go from the Standard Model. Therefore the biggest hope is not that they will find it where the Standard Model predicts, but just the opposite. Scientists have been hoping to poke a hole in the Standard Model for some time. Looks to me like, if they do not find the Higgs boson under 144 GeV then this pokes a hole in the Standard Model through which physicists could look for the clues they need in their efforts to solve the puzzle of quantum gravity.
I know you have never thought about how you would ever see an electron. Because the great scientists at the time, that were being given high paying jobs through government grants, grants for their poor scientific skills. Ran into the Universal Scientists, like they were running into a brick wall.
It was so embarrassing for the new scientists and for the Universal Scientists, because the Universal Scientists realized after seeing what fools were in charge of science, that the Universal Scientists failed to communicate that science was finished and totally understood.
The new scientists went to explain how they were going to see an electron. And the explanation they started to give ended up in a red faced, we could never see an electron, ending.
The sad part about it was, that both sides had destroyed the other, for ever perhaps. Because since that time, a time that I had it all, neatly and well kept, we have just sunk into the dark ages of science.
They had never even thought about the human eye. And how it perceives electrical charges, and turns them into a picture.
To see an electron, you are going to have to look through billions of atoms of air. And an infinite number of electrons.
Then what ever recording device, if you are not going to look at this singular electron directly, is going to have a lens, made of all kinds of chemicals and contaminants.
If it is paper film, chemically active substances will be on it to create a picture. Involving billions of atoms.
If the recording device is digital, you might be putting it through billions of atoms in the electronics.
My point is that, by the time you claim that you have isolated an electron. You will need billions of electrons to get a picture or outline of the electron and or its path, to your eye.
You guys go on and on, as if you are getting closer and closer to something wonderful. Meanwhile with every silly post you are striking a nail into the coffin of science. Which I am starting to believe is your goal.
There are no good scientists right now on earth.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
What does that have to do anything with the Higgs boson? :?
nothing, just ignore him.
I am saying that it does not exist. And since you will never even see an electron, the chances of seeing something smaller is really unbelievable.
I am saying all this talk of things you will never see and do not need to explain matter and all rays. Is wasting time, and destroying science.
All the weird things the newer scientists are claiming they are coming up with. Were not only predicted, but the prediction was that these things would occur and just cloud the well known and proven things.
Nothing new is coming for older scientists. They were able to predict it pretty much almost one hundred years ago.
They have had the weird accelerators now for a long time. The biggest uncovering was the meson many years ago for a while. They don't do anything, and you don't need them to describe how the electron was more then likely the particle they missed or misunderstood. They don't show anything. Except that Universal Scientists were correct. That is to much for their ego's to take.
You can get a lot more done, with things you can prove and demonstrate. I am sure the whole Universe is just electrons, in structures that give them new abilities. We live in electricity.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
Well, but all the math the new scientists are doing seems to disagree with your proposal. you see, you can't explain bosons with electrons, and believe me, photons really do exist.
I did not say math did not end in the sixties.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
You should, because math did not end in the sixties.
There is high probability that the universe will end before math does.
Math ended, you just don't want to know what it was.There is high probability that the universe will end before math does.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
William, math is done? Did someone prove or disprove, say, the Riemann Hypothesis? And who forgot to tell the best minds in analytic number theory? I've met quite a few of them, and I have a close relationship with one stellar individual, and they still think it's an open question. Oh, that's because it is, and that's one of the many open questions in math. So math is not done.
Seriously, how did you come to this conclusion? What math do you know? I seem to recall you not understanding some simple calculus I was using a month or two ago, so I'm guessing you don't know much at all. Thus, you cannot judge for yourself whether or not math is finished. Perhaps someone told you that math is done. Well, I have news: they were either mistaken or lying.
Nothing in science can ever end and thats just cos most of us just want to convince ourselves that it has.
Ask the number experts what the odds are of law makers allowing a real space program. Ask them what the numerical chances of their formula doing any good if we cannot even leave an over crowded planet.
We did all things that are being done. Some of the things we do are so simple that the weird ways that people are coming up to do them, shows they are not experts.
I can judge whether or not math is over. Because I was there when it too, was put aside for a quick rush from something new. The current greats look like Woody Allen accepting the bouquet of flowers dressed like Miss America.
It was all done, and redone. The law makers just don't like success. They are not part of success. They are part and parcel of failure.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
There is nothing I cannot build with the math I have now. And no where I cannot go. What is calculus? And why would I care? I probably use some simplified formulas, or methods that do not even need anything complex.
You may trust your math. By actual experience I do not. I also do not trust your vocabulary, or science.
Just relying on sine, cosine and tangent table values alone is far to dangerous for anything important, or life and death. By actual experience. Books can be wrong and calculators can be wrong. Computers are the definition of wrong.
We threw away statistics when real brave individuals from colleges brought them out. Because they were unhappy statistics. There is no more need for anymore complication, to hide our failure it is right in our face.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
William, can I test your math? Let's say you have two sides of a triangle with an inclusive angle of, say, 72<sup>o</sup>. The length of one of the two sides is 42mm and the second is 17mm. What is the length of the third side and can you show your workings please? 8)
Build a rocket ship and go to the moon, please.
You're an endless source of comedy, but you're also a sinkhole into which I've been pouring too much time and energy. I'm done.
Common William, show us. This is very basic high school level trigonometry, so you should be able to do what every second 18 year old can?
I used the formula Square root of A^2+B^2-(2*A*B*cosine of angle C)
A is one given leg. B is the other given leg. C is the given angle that has a common vertex to both legs.
I come up with 39.957427527495583624592647043369
The problem with this is that out in the field, you cannot even remember the formula. I usually have a laptop with me so I can get by. But otherwise I would take measurements and go back to home base.
I just reread your post, I believe that I used a 14 mm leg. I just did it form memory. Just check it to 14 mm. And 42 mm. @ 72 degrees.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
I had to much practice with triangles. We did all the small overhanging roofs at our local airport. They are just floating. We were not allowed to connect the two buildings. They are all held up with rather exact triangles. That are made out of one piece of metal so they do not rely on the weld, for their strength.
The weld also causes severe rust to form. So they are just tack welded at the seem which is on the back of the angle that gets mounted to the wall. So the seem is supported by the wall and fasteners.
But we made and installed a bunch of these. We did it for the love of the project though. Then we put sheet metal on them.
http://www.Rockwelder.com/GeneralCad...hangingout.jpg
http://www.Rockwelder.com/GeneralCad...irport/ap1.jpg
http://www.Rockwelder.com/GeneralCad...rt/landing.jpg
Sincerely,
William McCormick
Nice work.
Ok, so now you have no problem with using Sine etc? What about "Just relying on sine, cosine and tangent table values alone is far to dangerous for anything important, or life and death.”? You just worked out the length of that side using the only method that I know of and to great accuracy. The same applies to all the math that you claim to be overboard, needlessly cumbersome and ultimately wrong, including the calculus you claim to not need. How does that work? I submit to you that you simply don’t understand any of the concepts and math comprising Relativity and Quantum mechanics, among others, and from this given work out your own ideas of how things work that you find easy, having no way to test most of the ideas fully, while performing inappropriate experiments in an attempt to gauge the inner workings of things and drawing the wrong conclusions.
Nice work KALSTER!
It is the nature of human perception that our rationality plays a role in how we perceive things. This makes human beings subject to an immature tendency to adjust their perception of the world to fit their perception of themselves rather than the other way around, especially if this requires the harder work of self criticism and personal improvement. To this we can add the temptation to a feeling of superiority that comes with deciding that the majority have deluded themselves. This helps to explain why people are so often willfully ignorant. But it also explains why fundamental disagreements about the nature of reality persist between people who are anything but lazy, ignorant or full of imagined self importance. Part of the problem is that we can always imagine that some vestige of laziness, ignorance or self importance can account for the differences between us.
I personally believe that a lot of the differences between our perceptions of the world can be attributed to arbitrary factors such as can be found in language. But then that leads us identify another pathology in the persons that insist on a "language" that is all their own, when it should be clear that the usefulness of that is rather limited. If you have not read the story of the famous Indian mathematical genius Ramanujan, "The Man who Knew Infinity", I would reccomend it. He developed a system of producing mathematical proofs quite apart from the traditions of the mathematics establishment, but once welcomed into that establishment he made effort to reformulate his proofs according to those standards. A will to "communicate" properly is a kind of test of sanity.
I am saying that no matter the calculator, they are all flimsy. They are all subject to some of the weirdest errors, I have ever seen from electronic equipment. But on top of all of that. I have about twenty different calculators and all of them perform a task in a different way.Ok, so now you have no problem with using Sine etc? What about "Just relying on sine, cosine and tangent table values alone is far to dangerous for anything important, or life and death.”? You just worked out the length of that side using the only method that I know of and to great accuracy. The same applies to all the math that you claim to be overboard, needlessly cumbersome and ultimately wrong, including the calculus you claim to not need. How does that work? I submit to you that you simply don’t understand any of the concepts and math comprising Relativity and Quantum mechanics, among others, and from this given work out your own ideas of how things work that you find easy, having no way to test most of the ideas fully, while performing inappropriate experiments in an attempt to gauge the inner workings of things and drawing the wrong conclusions.
Next the formula itself. It has to be done on a calculator. I cannot do that on paper. Or I could but, I would not get much accomplished. So I am relying on either a calculator or a computer. Either way it is a gamble. Because I am not going to do it on paper.
The reason why, there are different calculators all performing standard math is because individuals learned basic math differently all across America. And hold to their standards. Some of them are right standards. And they should hold onto them. Some of them are wrong standards and they should get rid of them.
But when I approach individuals claiming to love math, they say don't touch my math. Leave it alone. Go away, you mean man. Even though I was taught the fastest most effective entry system. With no parenthesis.
I learned all the different styles of performing mathematics. And there are many. The one I liked most, was the one for imputing into a calculator or computer. It took anything you gave it without parenthesis. As far as I could see. It was infinitely easy and made inputting information easy and safe.
Without it, it is hard to use current equipment, to do simple triangle math.
Current Cadd programs are prone to errors. I have come to trust one platform. General Cadd. Other then that, I do not trust them, for entry and computation. And even then I would only trust the program up to a certain complexity of drawing. Not because the program will error. But because I can no longer keep track of the drawing and double check it.
Here is what I started to say. You do math for a purpose. The purpose is to make building something or doing something easier with math.
I saw your test or challenge, and said what the heck. I don't really go in for that. But I will be a sport. I read your post, I thought I had the measurements.
Normally if I was building something I would copy it to a popup window. But this was just a test. Surely I can remember three values.
I actually went back to look at the number once again. Because I lost track of where I was on the formula. Got all foggy. So I went back and got them again.
I had trouble with a computer calculator. It multiplied something twice in the blink of eye. Next thing you know I do it again. But for whatever reason I threw in a 14 instead of a 17. And although the purpose of seeing if I knew the formula, and could apply it to numbers was shown. I failed in doing a simple formula. And believe me this is not an act.
I do so many calculations in a day, that most would just not believe it. I have to use to automation. Or spend much more time doing everything.
I am saying that if you use sine, cosine and tangent. You tend to create errors because of the complexity, staging and order, of entering data.
I hate to rely on it. I cringe when I have too. I once did a complex formula on a hand held calculator. Two different ways. And I got the same answer. Luckily the answer obviously did not make sense. Or I would have cut up a bunch of stuff.
I have a machining hand book. That has misprinted sine, cosine, tangent Cotangent, Cosecant, versed sign, versed cosine values. With minute values as well. I can only imagine what that book did to some that wanted to learn machining. They probably sat there for weeks with pencil and paper.
We had a calculator that was crazy one time. I cannot double check these formulas until it is too late in most cases.
Not trying to put any pressure on you. I am just spouting off about the state of things.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
Thanks. We get the jobs no one wants. That is what makes them fun.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
William, there's just one thing I'd like to ask you, and that is,
find the area enclosed by the curve: x^2/a +y^2/b=2cx-3y+297 (a,b,c-constant) as accurately as calculus
WITHOUT using calculus.
Oh snap.
Can he use the formula (Area of ellipse) = πRr, where R is the semimajor axis and r the semiminor axis?
Oh, he can't use pi, as he has invented his own value for that too!Can he use the formula (Area of ellipse) = πRr, where R is the semimajor axis and r the semiminor axis?
William, you have 20 different calculators and they all produce different results with the same input? As I see it, it has to be one of two things: Either you are LYING about that, or it is simply a matter of user error. I am guessing that it has been a long time since you sat in a large classroom (if ever)? That setting is a good test of your claim and (having been part of quite a few instances where one equation is done by the whole class, using a wide variety of calculators), I can tell you with CERTAINTY that this claim of yours is not based on reality. An equation is presented to the class which on frequent occasions contains many levels of workings where the result of previous steps is perpetuated in the further stages of the equation. So a small disparity between the results of the different calculators in the initial stages of the equation could potentially (probably almost always) accumulate to such an extent that the final results are rendered totally useless. And this is when all the working of the equation is done perfectly. Don't you think such disastrous inefficiencies would have been noticed by now? This analogy is of an isolated classroom. Imagine the total cumulative chaos that would be reigning today if your ridiculous claim was fact (and this goes for your entire "wealth" of monumental misunderstandings). Are you going to claim a conspiracy now?
Oh, he can't use pi, as he has invented his own value for that too!Can he use the formula (Area of ellipse) = πRr, where R is the semimajor axis and r the semiminor axis?
William, you have 20 different calculators and they all produce different results with the same input? As I see it, it has to be one of two things: Either you are LYING about that, or it is simply a matter of user error. I am guessing that it has been a long time since you sat in a large classroom (if ever)? That setting is a good test of your claim and (having been part of quite a few instances where one equation is done by the whole class, using a wide variety of calculators), I can tell you with CERTAINTY that this claim of yours is not based on reality. An equation is presented to the class which on frequent occasions contains many levels of workings where the result of previous steps is perpetuated in the further stages of the equation. So a small disparity between the results of the different calculators in the initial stages of the equation could potentially (probably almost always) accumulate to such an extent that the final results are rendered totally useless. And this is when all the working of the equation is done perfectly. Don't you think such disastrous inefficiencies would have been noticed by now? This analogy is of an isolated classroom. Imagine the total cumulative chaos that would be reigning today if your ridiculous claim was fact (and this goes for your entire "wealth" of monumental misunderstandings). Are you going to claim a conspiracy now?
No, I did not say they give different results if you input the values either in different order or follow some other, order or rule specific to the calculator.
But, different calculators take information in different ways. And some accept information first and then perform a function, and others will accept the function and then the number to be acted upon. I even have an all metal calculator. No electronics. Ha-ha.
You know it looked like someone was asking me to solve some curve area problem.
When I deal with true curves, I only need the two end points of the curve, and the height of the curve. What in the world were all those numbers?
Sincerely,
William McCormick
If a whole class that is practicing a lot with their own calculator, and doing practice stuff. And they get a high percentage of correct answers in the classroom. What in the world does that have to do with the real world?Oh, he can't use pi, as he has invented his own value for that too!Can he use the formula (Area of ellipse) = πRr, where R is the semimajor axis and r the semiminor axis?
William, you have 20 different calculators and they all produce different results with the same input? As I see it, it has to be one of two things: Either you are LYING about that, or it is simply a matter of user error. I am guessing that it has been a long time since you sat in a large classroom (if ever)? That setting is a good test of your claim and (having been part of quite a few instances where one equation is done by the whole class, using a wide variety of calculators), I can tell you with CERTAINTY that this claim of yours is not based on reality. An equation is presented to the class which on frequent occasions contains many levels of workings where the result of previous steps is perpetuated in the further stages of the equation. So a small disparity between the results of the different calculators in the initial stages of the equation could potentially (probably almost always) accumulate to such an extent that the final results are rendered totally useless. And this is when all the working of the equation is done perfectly. Don't you think such disastrous inefficiencies would have been noticed by now? This analogy is of an isolated classroom. Imagine the total cumulative chaos that would be reigning today if your ridiculous claim was fact (and this goes for your entire "wealth" of monumental misunderstandings). Are you going to claim a conspiracy now?
Ask the class to pass their calculators around and then do a check. Most students in college I believe use a Tandy, calculator. It used to be the model 30 I believe. Today I do not know.
When this catches me in real life. I am up on a roof, in a vault, or up twenty stories in a mechanical room. I do not have my calculating equipment with me because I went for another reason. All of a sudden because I can do the calculations, I borrow a calculator or do it on paper. And I am not pleased with the results if the formulas are complex.
There is a total lack of a standard. In something that is supposed to be the epitome of a simplistic standard.
You had asked me if, I thought that blatant inconsistencies would be noticed by now. My answer is no. In fact the only thing you seem to notice, and attack, are things that lead to the uncovering of the blatant inconsistencies.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
This is not saying they produce errors? I know the input method differs sometimes (some have Direct Algebraic Logic, D.A.L.).I am saying that no matter the calculator, they are all flimsy. They are all subject to some of the weirdest errors, I have ever seen from electronic equipment.
Then it is YOUR fault that errors creep in, not Sine, Cos and Tan’s. Any reasonable person would have one calculator!I am saying that if you use sine, cosine and tangent. You tend to create errors because of the complexity, staging and order, of entering data.
Let me clarify the equation for you then William:
X<sup>2</sup>/a + Y<sup>2</sup>/b = 2cX – 3Y + 297
You do a lot of supping. What is a sup? If you have a true arc that you want the area for, give me three coordinates. I do not want "x sup" "y sup".This is not saying they produce errors? I know the input method differs sometimes (some have Direct Algebraic Logic, D.A.L.).I am saying that no matter the calculator, they are all flimsy. They are all subject to some of the weirdest errors, I have ever seen from electronic equipment.
Then it is YOUR fault that errors creep in, not Sine, Cos and Tan’s. Any reasonable person would have one calculator!I am saying that if you use sine, cosine and tangent. You tend to create errors because of the complexity, staging and order, of entering data.
Let me clarify the equation for you then William:
X<sup>2</sup>/a + Y<sup>2</sup>/b = 2cX – 3Y + 297
Look my team can go to the moon in a couple months with a small bank roll. Your team may never get there. Your team built a craft designed for orbiting in a light atmosphere, not deep space.
Our team would have built any space craft for deep space, incase it ended up there.
So to me all I see are blatant inconsistencies.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
It was an analogy to demonstrate that errors in the calculators would produce wildly differing results through the class. In the real world engineers, scientists etc. make calculations on a daily basis using the same math tools in many cases. If errors were as prevalent as you suggest, all hell would have broken loose long ago. If you are having difficulty with the various equations, it is YOUR problem and not one that is widely experienced.And they get a high percentage of correct answers in the classroom. What in the world does that have to do with the real world?
Besides, this part of the dialogue started with you refuting calculus etc., and claiming that you can do any math without it.
PROVE IT!
William,
you have derailed this thread, just as you have disrailed a number of others. You have complained that you are not given an opportunity to prove your case. You have an opportunity now. I recommned you respond to Kastler's challenge.
Ophiolite
Look at the displayed page, not at the one you prepare your message in. The "sup" is for the exponents to display correctly. For subscripts you use "sub" as in X<sub>2</sub>.You do a lot of supping. What is a sup? If you have a true arc that you want the area for, give me three coordinates. I do not want "x sup" "y sup".
All Hell broke loose. America went with a system of man made laws. With loop holes for the law makers. Rather then a system of leadership.
We live in a fifth world nation ruled by law makers. We do not have a space program. We do not even have decent mathematical standards anymore. Nor English, or science standards of any worth.
Hell, is my wet dream.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
A true arc is made with three points. Give me the three points. Simply.
I can tell why you guys don't believe me about real things. You are off on a tangent. Of complication of simplicity.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
Um... how about these curves? They look quite different to me, and yet they intersect in three points...
Ah, the true mathematician enters!
How can he refute that? :wink:
Politics?! I am in South Africa by the way, where we use the same mathematical tools as anywhere else.
What exactly is a “true” arc? Are they the only ones that exist? If you live in the real world, you would come way short if you could only deal with “true” arcs. Do you live there?A true arc is made with three points. Give me the three points. Simply.
I can tell why you guys don't believe me about real things. You are off on a tangent. Of complication of simplicity.
Those are made up of separate curves. Many of them. A curve as the question was put to me is a singular piece of a circle.Um... how about these curves? They look quite different to me, and yet they intersect in three points...
Complex curves are something else.
If you use an algorithm and alter the center of each arc, you can create wild arcs. Like the Volute I posted. But to make them in real life, I need each center of each radius of each arc. You might have twenty arcs there.
I actually missed something there in that drawing. And what you said.
Those curves are not drawn to the same three points either. When I create an ARC, I need three points to create the arc. Points require, one "x" and one "y" value, to create one points coordinate.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
I'm sorry, William, I have to say it again. You have no idea what you're talking about.
All of the curves I gave to you are defined by simple algebraic expressions. Each is a single, continuous, completely smooth curve.
The curve as the question was put to you was not necessarily that of a circle--it could have been an ellipse or a hyperbola.
Calculus allows you to compute areas related to all of these curves.
You can construct all of these shapes easily in the physical world.
This is all old hat. Mathematicians have been doing this for hundreds of years. Did your teachers miss the boat?
I would put the books down and see how things are really made. This is something I would just love for you to work out the math on. This is real, this is kept to tolerances that are pretty tight. Yet the calculations to recreate it would be mind boggling. I know. I recreate these things.
http://www.Rockwelder.com/GeneralCad.../irontwist.WMV
http://www.Rockwelder.com/GeneralCad...dingonajig.WMV
Obviously you can make designs using an algorithm, however I have found that when dealing with Bezzier curves there is no exact math for them. And unfortunately in real life most equipment ends up bending you things in a beaaier curve pattern. So we know that your exacting pattern will only exist on the drawing board anyway.
I use a computer to create all these things. And I can get them to within a quarter inch, of the computer drawing. But that is it. Part of the reason is that you have to convert the bezzier curves into real arcs to calculate the lengths of the metal.
I made this for my sister.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
That's a sweet spiral staircase. Good work, Bill.
If I were to show up to your worksite and start flipping around my fancy pants math, I'd sure as hell look like a fool. No question about that. I have to admit I've done as much in the past, too.
But when we're talking about general curves and related calculations, the fact that you personally can't create such things with your hands has no relevance, and you're the one who plays the fool in suggesting it does. The question at hand is simple: calculate some areas related to ellipses and hyperbolas. This can be done whether you can make them or not.
William,
Sorry to break it to you,
The "IMPOSSIBLE" thing you said would never happen?
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
It has happened!!!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0222095358.htm
I understand the math behind it. I really do. But from a distance. Because it really does me no good in real life. As of this time. And I can create any shape I wish.
At one time I felt that way about Cadd. Then it became more stable with time. Now often it is faster then just laying it out. But sometimes I surprise everyone including myself when I just lay it out by hand.
No matter what, when you come up with all these truly remarkable algorithms or ratios, you still have to lay it out in the real world. And we need individual centers. Or a billion x,y coordinates. To create complex arcs or curves.
A curve is a bit of a circle. Curves are a bunch of arcs or curves.
We really do just lay out complex curves with simple tricks of the trade. I would be happy to share them with you.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
You take what I say the wrong way. I am the one saying we can do anything and go anywhere. Half the problem is with the tools including calculators and computers.
The other half is that we cannot check the math on paper using these formulas. So unless we can bet our life on picking up that calculator on stage and plug in some numbers and just keep pressing functions and enter, and know that the answer will be perfect. Having no idea what the answer is. To me it is just gambling.
The reason technology does not catch on. Is because those that do work with all these calculations. For one know that most architects and engineers drawings are just pretty pictures. And do not show the exact thing being built. Look at the number of revisions for one product.
Second because often an architect uses complex curves and assumes that they are simple to recreate because he just plugged in some numbers and out comes his curve.
When in real life that strange curve, may require fifty different radius centers to be located on a job site. The contractor, had no clue. The workers come up with ways to duplicate it, to look like the picture. But it is never the picture.
So I know that the area of your calculation is off by a good deal. And I have not picked up a pencil yet.
In machining, on small parts it will look better. However you will suffer the same kind of mismatch.
Again in real life we take points and create arcs between the points. Sometimes we use bend able metal, that re-creates a natural arc. For larger jobs.
For smaller jobs we use rotating tables or cutting head mounts, moved by another mechanism, in x,y increments. To achieve a more perfect arc. Because even the best machines can only create, a nearly perfect arc moving in x,y patterns.
To help we size the bits larger in radius so they hide the x,y movements more. If you try to machine a very thin arced slot with weird tight curves in tough metals. You see the jagged cut more so.
And to me the last and finale problem is that, a mathematical language existed. For many years in America. It was done in the order of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. In that order so you could use a variation of the multiplication symbol, which allowed for local and global multiplication, without parenthesis for addition or subtraction.
At the time the fraction symbol and the division symbol that is still found on some calculators, meant two different things. It really still does.
This also allowed you to create a fraction or ratio in the middle of no where. Without putting parenthesis around the fraction. The in line division key, took everything to the left and divided it by everything on the right.
By totaling the equation here or there, there was no where you could not go. It was an infinite system of mathematical entry, with no parenthesis.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
This discussion reeks of going nowhere but into our own egos.
That is where you are wrong. And you have a prejudice against working individuals.
We love when you guys come on down. We will pick your brains clean, and let you do the same. Usually you guys do not want to know the real deal though. Not a prejudice, actual statistics.
I talk to engineers all the time. And they don't say well, put points here, here and here. And strike arcs from there to there. They say can't you just make it curvy? I can't type the hand motions used as well. But they usually lead to future comedy.
But some of you guys are cool. And the ones that are, cool we still fight, but we both get stronger. I really would love to fiddle with fancy curves and math. But the technology and the need is not really there.
I would have to convert them to something else to make them, or see them. So I totally admit I have no clue, about conversing in complex arcs or curves.
But I can recreate them using x,y coordinates, and then modify them to less complex curves. Using less arcs or curves, to achieve almost the exact same thing. But simplified.
Because I still need the start and stop of each arc, to build or do something with it.
For real projects I can just take a couple measurements and recreate arcs using Cadd on a computer, back at home base. The computer can pretty much fill in the measurements in between the points I measured. It beats taking huge pieces of cardboard or wood and making templates.
But even this is pushing the technology of today. I can do it. However I have a lot of experience in doing it. And I still make templates if the brick work is too unnaturally curved.
If you spent one day, making complex curves, you would burn your calculator and computer.
All you would have to do is spend a couple weeks making complex rails. Or complex curved cabinets or other designs, and you would be on my side.
One of the most efficient, quite impellers is the most simple design from World War Two. It is made with quarter circle arcs. Unbelievable.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
As far as I know the Higgs boson (HB) is an invented variable to level out an equation. (Standard Modell?)
They have a long equation that can calculate alot of stuff, but it only works if you use HB in it. But since it works very well with HB on alot of previously known stuff - it seems very likely it does infact exist.
Thank you Twixly, for finaly bringing back the actual topic of this thread.
Like you guys do not suffer from enough variables now?
Sincerely,
William McCormick
| « Bubbles:)) | egg drop using limited materials » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
