A.C. Generator

HarveyH55 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:To give you guys an idea, the inverse power rule is wrong.

I didn't know there was a "rule" by that name.

James___ wrote: 1/4 to the negative 1st power is not 4.

Yes it is. It's not so much a rule as it is a definition (of notation).

Writing [1/4]^-1 is just another way of writing 1/[1/4] ... which equals 4 because there are four one-fourths in the value "1".

James___ wrote:With the inverse power, they say 4 written as a fraction is 4/1 which it is.

It's not a fraction. It's a ratio. A fraction is a value between 0 and 1.

James___ wrote:When it is 4/1^1 (to the negative first power), 1/4 is the opposite or inverse of 4.

"1/4" is the multiplicative inverse of "4" and vice versa.

James___ wrote:4^2 (4 squared or 4 times 4) is 16. That is the result of a function ...

It is the result of a mathematical operation.

James___ wrote: 1/4^-1 becoming 4 is not the result of a function.

1/4^-1 does not become 4. 1/4^-1 is, by definition, another way of writing "4." It's all in the definition of that little exponent notation.

James___ wrote: If change was the result of function then 1/4^-1 would be 1/4 divided by 1/4 = 1.

Not quite. Your base is always the number "1". You then multiply or divide by the specified value as indicated by the exponent. For example:

VALUE^2 = 1 * VALUE^2 = 1 * VALUE * VALUE [i.e. you multiply by VALUE twice]
VALUE^0 = 1 * VALUE^0 = 1 [and you multiply by VALUE zero times]
VALUE^5 / VALUE^5 = VALUE^(5-5) = VALUE^0 = 1
VALUE^-3 = 1 / VALUE^3 = 1 / [VALUE * VALUE * VALUE]
VALUE^[2/3] = 1 * VALUE^[2/3] = CUBE_ROOT(VALUE^2)

It's simply the definition of the notation and what it means. People would rather write 16^[-5/7] than have to write:

SEVENTH_ROOT([1/16]*[1/16]*[1/16]*[1/16]*[1/16])

James___ wrote:... but as shown in the images, using an inverse function can change a number without it being the result of a function (multiplication or division).

So now that you understand the notation, can you find the error in the images?

Remember, whether it's Global Warming, ATE, Climate Change, or any other type of gibber-babble, anything can be dutifully supported with just the right application of bogus math.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.


.

Think James already knows that math can be used to clarify or confuse. Since there is no reason to pull out the math to clarify anything, then it's to intentionally confuse. A deception, which forces people that don't understand his babbling, to trust that he knows what he is trying to sell. He wants that false sense of credibility, much like those he idolizes. Not realizing that there are a lot of Phd's out there, who are clueless morons. Just because you can memorize a textbook or two, doesn't mean you comprehend, or can use the content. I did a lot of that, for subjects that held little interest, things of little practical use. I just needed the passing grade. While in college, I had the privilege of meeting quite a few clueless morons, who just needed a piece of paper to hang on the wall.

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Think James already knows that math can be used to clarify or confuse. Since there is no reason to pull out the math to clarify anything, then it's to intentionally confuse. A deception, which forces people that don't understand his babbling, to trust that he knows what he is trying to sell. He wants that false sense of credibility, much like those he idolizes. Not realizing that there are a lot of Phd's out there, who are clueless morons. Just because you can memorize a textbook or two, doesn't mean you comprehend, or can use the content. I did a lot of that, for subjects that held little interest, things of little practical use. I just needed the passing grade. While in college, I had the privilege of meeting quite a few clueless morons, who just needed a piece of paper to hang on the wall.

You shouldn't talk about yourself that way Harvey. I'll give you an obvious example, okay? If we multiply 1 by -1 we get 1 * -1 = -1, right?
And now if we count on a number line starting at one and count to -1 the number is 2.
And if we multiply 3 * -1 = -3, the number is 6. In school they said to just accept it. Math isn't supposed to be that way.

p.s., this is where with my service connected hearing loss I am supposed to go along to get along. That really doesn't work for me.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Think James already knows that math can be used to clarify or confuse. Since there is no reason to pull out the math to clarify anything, then it's to intentionally confuse. A deception, which forces people that don't understand his babbling, to trust that he knows what he is trying to sell. He wants that false sense of credibility, much like those he idolizes. Not realizing that there are a lot of Phd's out there, who are clueless morons. Just because you can memorize a textbook or two, doesn't mean you comprehend, or can use the content. I did a lot of that, for subjects that held little interest, things of little practical use. I just needed the passing grade. While in college, I had the privilege of meeting quite a few clueless morons, who just needed a piece of paper to hang on the wall.

You shouldn't talk about yourself that way Harvey. I'll give you an obvious example, okay? If we multiply 1 by -1 we get 1 * -1 = -1, right?
And now if we count on a number line starting at one and count to -1 the number is 2.
And if we multiply 3 * -1 = -3, the number is 6. In school they said to just accept it. Math isn't supposed to be that way.

p.s., this is where with my service connected hearing loss I am supposed to go along to get along. That really doesn't work for me.

Counting is N+1, dude. You can't get to -1 if N starts at zero.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Think James already knows that math can be used to clarify or confuse. Since there is no reason to pull out the math to clarify anything, then it's to intentionally confuse. A deception, which forces people that don't understand his babbling, to trust that he knows what he is trying to sell. He wants that false sense of credibility, much like those he idolizes. Not realizing that there are a lot of Phd's out there, who are clueless morons. Just because you can memorize a textbook or two, doesn't mean you comprehend, or can use the content. I did a lot of that, for subjects that held little interest, things of little practical use. I just needed the passing grade. While in college, I had the privilege of meeting quite a few clueless morons, who just needed a piece of paper to hang on the wall.

You shouldn't talk about yourself that way Harvey. I'll give you an obvious example, okay? If we multiply 1 by -1 we get 1 * -1 = -1, right?
And now if we count on a number line starting at one and count to -1 the number is 2.
And if we multiply 3 * -1 = -3, the number is 6. In school they said to just accept it. Math isn't supposed to be that way.

p.s., this is where with my service connected hearing loss I am supposed to go along to get along. That really doesn't work for me.

Counting is N+1, dude. You can't get to -1 if N starts at zero.

To state the obvious for you guys.
1 x (-1) = -1..............as graphed, it is -2, ie., 1 - 2 = -1
3 x (-1) = -3..............as graphed, it is -6, ie., 3 - 6 = -3

And you guys will be like, I know math and I know enough to "talk the right way". 1 x (-1) = -1 and 3 x (-1) = -3.

HarveyH55 wrote:

James___ wrote:

To state the obvious for you guys.
1 x (-1) = -1..............as graphed, it is -2, ie., 1 - 2 = -1
3 x (-1) = -3..............as graphed, it is -6, ie., 3 - 6 = -3

And you guys will be like, I know math and I know enough to "talk the right way". 1 x (-1) = -1 and 3 x (-1) = -3.

Still not sure what you are getting at, or why it even matters... How does this apply to an reality-based situation?

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:How does this apply to an reality-based situation?

With what I am pursuing, it does matter.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:How does this apply to an reality-based situation?

With what I am pursuing, it does matter.

You're pursuing an imaginary-based situation?

Oh, that's right, you are. I'll make a pencil drawing of it for you.

.

HarveyH55 wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Think James already knows that math can be used to clarify or confuse. Since there is no reason to pull out the math to clarify anything, then it's to intentionally confuse. A deception, which forces people that don't understand his babbling, to trust that he knows what he is trying to sell. He wants that false sense of credibility, much like those he idolizes. Not realizing that there are a lot of Phd's out there, who are clueless morons. Just because you can memorize a textbook or two, doesn't mean you comprehend, or can use the content. I did a lot of that, for subjects that held little interest, things of little practical use. I just needed the passing grade. While in college, I had the privilege of meeting quite a few clueless morons, who just needed a piece of paper to hang on the wall.

You shouldn't talk about yourself that way Harvey. I'll give you an obvious example, okay? If we multiply 1 by -1 we get 1 * -1 = -1, right?
And now if we count on a number line starting at one and count to -1 the number is 2.
And if we multiply 3 * -1 = -3, the number is 6. In school they said to just accept it. Math isn't supposed to be that way.

p.s., this is where with my service connected hearing loss I am supposed to go along to get along. That really doesn't work for me.

Counting is N+1, dude. You can't get to -1 if N starts at zero.

To state the obvious for you guys.
1 x (-1) = -1..............as graphed, it is -2, ie., 1 - 2 = -1
3 x (-1) = -3..............as graphed, it is -6, ie., 3 - 6 = -3

And you guys will be like, I know math and I know enough to "talk the right way". 1 x (-1) = -1 and 3 x (-1) = -3.

Still not sure what you are getting at, or why it even matters... How does this apply to an reality-based situation?

James___ wrote: ... the inverse function helped me to understand how the atmospheric pressures of Venus, Earth and the Mars are all related to the Sun's gravitational field.

James___ wrote: If Mercury is given a theoretical atmospheric pressure then the value 0.0309 would change.

James___ wrote: So if my work on perpetual motion proves out

James___ wrote: and I get a chance to make this known, it will change both atmospheric chemistry and astrophysics.

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

James___ wrote:

To state the obvious for you guys.
1 x (-1) = -1..............as graphed, it is -2, ie., 1 - 2 = -1
3 x (-1) = -3..............as graphed, it is -6, ie., 3 - 6 = -3

And you guys will be like, I know math and I know enough to "talk the right way". 1 x (-1) = -1 and 3 x (-1) = -3.

Still not sure what you are getting at, or why it even matters... How does this apply to an reality-based situation?

With someone like yourself, it probably doesn't matter. It won't affect anything you do. With what I am pursuing, it does matter.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: ... the inverse function helped me to understand how the atmospheric pressures of Venus, Earth and the Mars are all related to the Sun's gravitational field.

There's no relationship there for you to understand. Neither is dependent upon the other in any way.

James___ wrote: If Mercury is given a theoretical atmospheric pressure then the value 0.0309 would change.

Why would any rational adult concern himself results from giving Mercury's atmosphere a theoretical pressure?

James___ wrote: So if my work on perpetual motion proves out

Is there any sort of hypothesis towards which you are working? What are you trying to show concerning perpetual motion? If you are trying to show that it is not possible then I have some bad news for you. Somebody beat you to it.

James___ wrote: and I get a chance to make this known, it will change both atmospheric chemistry and astrophysics.

It would change the laws of thermodynamics.

Good luck.

.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Planets, are just really big gravity wheels in the sky, and just keep turning perpetually. Everybody else failed to make their gravity wheels work right, because they didn't understand math. With a properly constructed gravity wheel, coupled to an A.C. generator, we'll have perpetual, free energy. Democrats love 'free stuff'. so it must be fact.

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Planets, are just really big gravity wheels in the sky, and just keep turning perpetually. Everybody else failed to make their gravity wheels work right, because they didn't understand math. With a properly constructed gravity wheel, coupled to an A.C. generator, we'll have perpetual, free energy. Democrats love 'free stuff'. so it must be fact.

Perpetual motion is impossible. I thought everybody knew that. Did you not get the message?
Planets like satellites orbiting the Earth are simply conserving the angular potential of gravity. Why are Republicans afraid of doing a little work?

p.s., I'm not a Democrat so why are you trying to make this political when it's not?

HarveyH55 wrote:

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Planets, are just really big gravity wheels in the sky, and just keep turning perpetually. Everybody else failed to make their gravity wheels work right, because they didn't understand math. With a properly constructed gravity wheel, coupled to an A.C. generator, we'll have perpetual, free energy. Democrats love 'free stuff'. so it must be fact.

Perpetual motion is impossible. I thought everybody knew that. Did you not get the message?
Planets like satellites orbiting the Earth are simply conserving the angular potential of gravity. Why are Republicans afraid of doing a little work?

p.s., I'm not a Democrat so why are you trying to make this political when it's not?

Many things were once thought impossible, until somebody figured out how... Gravity wheels fail, because gravity acts on all parts of the machine, always. There is no way to negate or shield any of the effects of gravity.

You are a closet-democrat. You fully embrace democrat values and principals, agenda.

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Planets, are just really big gravity wheels in the sky, and just keep turning perpetually. Everybody else failed to make their gravity wheels work right, because they didn't understand math. With a properly constructed gravity wheel, coupled to an A.C. generator, we'll have perpetual, free energy. Democrats love 'free stuff'. so it must be fact.

Perpetual motion is impossible. I thought everybody knew that. Did you not get the message?
Planets like satellites orbiting the Earth are simply conserving the angular potential of gravity. Why are Republicans afraid of doing a little work?

p.s., I'm not a Democrat so why are you trying to make this political when it's not?

Many things were once thought impossible, until somebody figured out how... Gravity wheels fail, because gravity acts on all parts of the machine, always. There is no way to negate or shield any of the effects of gravity.

You are a closet-democrat. You fully embrace democrat values and principals, agenda.

I could post a simple idea to prove you wrong but that wouldn't help me to pursue the science I want to do, would it? It wouldn't. Why I need to take my time.
I'm more of a socialist if anything. Cooperative effort usually works better.

p.s., a single payer healthcare system and not the Dumbocrats supporting Pubic Hairs would cost less while providing better care.
There'd simply be less profit because people and not their symptoms would be treated. I call it the Smart Healthcare system.

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Planets, are just really big gravity wheels in the sky, and just keep turning perpetually. Everybody else failed to make their gravity wheels work right, because they didn't understand math. With a properly constructed gravity wheel, coupled to an A.C. generator, we'll have perpetual, free energy. Democrats love 'free stuff'. so it must be fact.

Perpetual motion is impossible. I thought everybody knew that. Did you not get the message?
Planets like satellites orbiting the Earth are simply conserving the angular potential of gravity. Why are Republicans afraid of doing a little work?

p.s., I'm not a Democrat so why are you trying to make this political when it's not?

Many things were once thought impossible, until somebody figured out how... Gravity wheels fail, because gravity acts on all parts of the machine, always. There is no way to negate or shield any of the effects of gravity.

You are a closet-democrat. You fully embrace democrat values and principals, agenda.

I could post a simple idea to prove you wrong but that wouldn't help me to pursue the science I want to do, would it? It wouldn't. Why I need to take my time.
I'm more of a socialist if anything. Cooperative effort usually works better.

p.s., a single payer healthcare system and not the Dumbocrats supporting Pubic Hairs would cost less while providing better care.
There'd simply be less profit because people and not their symptoms would be treated. I call it the Smart Healthcare system.

HarveyH55 wrote:

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Planets, are just really big gravity wheels in the sky, and just keep turning perpetually. Everybody else failed to make their gravity wheels work right, because they didn't understand math. With a properly constructed gravity wheel, coupled to an A.C. generator, we'll have perpetual, free energy. Democrats love 'free stuff'. so it must be fact.

Perpetual motion is impossible. I thought everybody knew that. Did you not get the message?
Planets like satellites orbiting the Earth are simply conserving the angular potential of gravity. Why are Republicans afraid of doing a little work?

p.s., I'm not a Democrat so why are you trying to make this political when it's not?

Many things were once thought impossible, until somebody figured out how... Gravity wheels fail, because gravity acts on all parts of the machine, always. There is no way to negate or shield any of the effects of gravity.

You are a closet-democrat. You fully embrace democrat values and principals, agenda.

I could post a simple idea to prove you wrong but that wouldn't help me to pursue the science I want to do, would it? It wouldn't. Why I need to take my time.
I'm more of a socialist if anything. Cooperative effort usually works better.

p.s., a single payer healthcare system and not the Dumbocrats supporting Pubic Hairs would cost less while providing better care.
There'd simply be less profit because people and not their symptoms would be treated. I call it the Smart Healthcare system.

If your recovery pays the same, whether successful, or not. It shifts from quality to volume. Basically, here's you pills, the stitches will fall out on their own eventually, 'NEXT', the doctor will see you now... No crap-sack for you, when a prescription-strength EX-Lax, and a diet of nothing else but Taco Bell value meals would keep things moving, rapidly.

James___ wrote:You don't get it, do you?

James___ wrote: I'll give you an example.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:You don't get it, do you?

Don't worry, James__, I get it. Your brilliance isn't lost on me.

James___ wrote: I'll give you an example.

Thank you. You make your point with crystal clarity.

I love the way you set up your argument and hammer home your point. Let me walk through your methodic and systematized logic:

1) You had symptoms of something that was COVID-like.
2) You called the VA and spoke with a nurse who was a plural.
3) They put your symptoms into the computer but almost omitted the spider bite that reveals your blood is black.

Now this is where it gets good.

4) Instead of going to the ER to get checked for COVID, you stayed home because of the spider bite; you would only go to the ER if your symptoms got worse. Pretty straightforward.
5) A different nurse implied that a surgeon cannot keep track of every one of his many patients.
6) Therefore doctors need to be using AI
7) This would reduce the number of patients and therefore would decrease their income.
8) Therefore doctors need to be avoiding AI

... which leads to the coup de grâce ...

9) Conclusion: improving healthcare would reduce the profits of the corporations that have invested in the healthcare field.

Nice! Well played.

.