SirIsaac

6 ms·

1.
by SirIsaac 3y ago
Haha, Hi there.
2.
by SirIsaac 3y ago
Another equally plausible MOND model is one in which the gravitational constant G increases with distance. This is what is observed in the orbits of stars around the center of a galaxy. Of course, this is a pseudo-increase caused by, you gu
3.
by SirIsaac 3y ago
Sooner or later, the physics community will come to their senses and realize that every massive particle is surrounded by its own dark matter halo. This is the reason that measurements of the gravitational constant G suffer from a high unce
4.
by SirIsaac 3y ago
The problem with MOND is that it's just math. It doesn't explain anything in terms of cause and effect because it doesn't have a physical basis. The problem with the cold dark matter model is that it posits a massive, slow mo
5.
by SirIsaac 4y ago
The biggest problem with DL is its inherent inability to effectively generalize. Without generalization, edge cases are an insurmountable problem, something that the autonomous vehicle industry found out the hard way after wasting more than
6.
No Machine Will Ever Be Sentient(medium.com)
1 points by SirIsaac 4y ago|0 comments
7.
by SirIsaac 5y ago
Yes, pretty much. In my opinion, perception is generalization. To perceive a bicycle is to perceive many types of qualities or properties about it that can also be applied to a potentially infinite number of other objects. The brain can per
8.
by SirIsaac 5y ago
Dreyfus was a very intelligent man. He knew the difference between representational and non-representational systems. As Yann LeCun has said many times, deep learning is the learning of representations. That's all anyone needs to know
9.
Why Tesla Cannot Solve Full Self-Driving – Deep Learning Is Hopelessly Flawed(medium.com)
57 points by SirIsaac 5y ago|26 comments
10.
by SirIsaac 5y ago
I'm done here. Thanks for your input.
11.
by SirIsaac 5y ago
Ok. Thanks for the exchange.
12.
by SirIsaac 5y ago
> This equation is not some core law of the universe. > It's simple to the point of not being especially interesting. Either you don't realize what you're saying or you are playing a game of deception. 1. This equation
13.
by SirIsaac 5y ago
Coriolis was wrong. The work done has nothing to do with distance. It only has to do with velocity. Accelerating the body from 0 to a final velocity is the work. This is what force does. If you know the distance and the acceleration, you ca
14.
by SirIsaac 5y ago
Thanks for the comment. I see your point but I don't think it's a matter of definition. There is no doubt that the correct equation is Ek = mv². Since velocity v² = 2ad, it follows that mv² = 2mad = 2Fd. The work done is the accel
15.
by SirIsaac 5y ago
Sorry. Ek = mv² is the correct formula, not the simplest. And it does not express rest energy but kinetic energy. This is obvious, no?
16.
by SirIsaac 5y ago
The ½ comes from integrating W = Fd. No one is arguing against that. The equation should be W = mv² = 2Fd. Why? because v² = 2 a*d.
17.
by SirIsaac 5y ago
Thanks. I admit that my previous article was in error but this new article uses a different approach to the problem. It shows that the current equation was never meant to replace the previous one. Coriolis clearly wrote that he used vis viv
18.
by SirIsaac 5y ago
In my opinion, Ek = mv² contradicts special relativity. The maximum energy is E = mc². There can be no doubt about it. And it is not rest energy. It is obviously kinetic energy. But that's just me.
19.
The Controversial Origin of the Kinetic Energy Equation Ek = ½mv²(medium.com)
5 points by SirIsaac 5y ago|20 comments
20.
by SirIsaac 5y ago
"Abstract In this article, we argue that there is a subtle error in Newton’s work equation, W = Fd. It should be W = 2Fd instead."
21.
The Flaw in Newton’s Work Equation ‘W = Fd’(medium.com)
1 points by SirIsaac 5y ago|1 comments
22.
by SirIsaac 5y ago
In my opinion, it is not Einstein's equation. It's Newton's equation applied to the speed of light. It's not v=0 but v=c. It just so happens that mc² is also the potential energy of a body at rest. Yes, a photon's e
23.
by SirIsaac 5y ago
>"proportional to mv²" also means "proportional to 1/2 mv²" and "proportional to 123.45 mv²". Yes. This is my point. The error has never been found experimentally because everything eventually gets reso
24.
by SirIsaac 5y ago
I don't yet see how inertial mass would differ from gravitational mass if the K.E. equation is changed. I'll need to think about it some more. We are currently preparing an experiment to test the prediction of our theory that will
25.
by SirIsaac 5y ago
I don't believe it. They're probably measuring mass and velocity and applying the formula afterwards. That doesn't prove anything. Back in Leibniz' days, they would use soft clay and measure the depths of the indentation
26.
by SirIsaac 5y ago
> mv² = 2mgh I think I now know what you mean. You mean that a mass will gain kinetic equal to 1/2 mv² by the time it hits the ground from a height of h. This doesn't prove your claim. Using my own derivation of kinetic energy,
27.
by SirIsaac 5y ago
> Not every value is divided by 2. Only the K.E. term is divided by 2. The P.E. term is not. I'm not sure what that means. > If you ever find where Young worked out the equivalency to P.E. then you'll find he had m v² = 2 m
28.
by SirIsaac 5y ago
I understand French. I looked through the document. I could not find any place where Coriolis derived kinetic energy. He was apparently using someone else's derivation. By simple substitution, anyone can easily derive E = mv² from Newt
29.
by SirIsaac 5y ago
I don't need Einstein's equation. Momentum is already assumed in kinetic energy and kinetic energy assumes massive bodies. This is the reason for using mass in the formula. I have no idea why you want the kinetic energy to be 0. T
30.
by SirIsaac 5y ago
By the way, using the correct kinetic energy formula, one can arrive at this striking analogy: E/Ek = c/v This tells us that the rest energy (E) of a body is to its kinetic energy (Ek) what the speed of light (c) is to its velocit

More ›