h a l f b a k e r yRecalculations place it at 0.4999.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
_ --
Extend wifi by increasing field permeability | |
Plug into the wall a non signal generator that waves the EM field so it more elastic and pliable to your existing wifi signalling equipment.
I was installing an wifi extender but the short 1 minute WPS on the wireless modem didn't allow registration. Funnily enough the wifi signal still got slightly
better. I am putting this down to having more energy in the space, the extender would be pumping EM but not doing any signal work. This extra energy would make it easier for the wireless modem to signal on it's channels.
This would not be a booster as the equipment would make it easier for all EM signalling equipment in the area rather than just a selected piece of equipment.
The room, with it's traveling light, would be warmer too.
Planck time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time
Extended version of the New York Second [8th of 7, Dec 06 2014]
[normzone] time
http://en.wikipedia...Wave_%28audience%29
...waves or particles?... [normzone, Dec 06 2014]
https://xkcd.com/654/
[pertinax, Jul 19 2015]
Stochastic resonance
https://en.wikipedi...tochastic_resonance
Addition of noise increases signal [bungston, Jul 21 2015]
[link]
|
| |
//non signal generator that waves the EM field so it more elastic and pliable// I don't mean to be rude, but this aspect of the idea could do with some clarification. |
|
| |
//the wifi signal still got slightly better// because somebody else's router decided the channel was too busy and changed channels. |
|
| |
True, the neighbour could be my boost or it could even be a psychological want. I can see trying to get a volume manipulation of the EM field will be tricky. |
|
| |
Plugging in an ion generator should increase individual numbers of electron and positive charge fields in the volume which should have an effect on the overall EM field space. |
|
| |
Like anything with nature, too much of a good thing will negate the goal. |
|
| |
You seem to have some rather odd notions about how electromagnetic fields works. |
|
| |
//some rather odd notions// |
|
| |
Welcome to the Ministry of Unsound. |
|
| |
The electron magnet field of the Earth, circulates information in the form of energy signals that people sometimes interpret as their own thoughts. That's where the idea of radio waves originated, when someone realized that the same way thoughts are communicated could instead be done to another object indirectly, such as a radio receiver. However the information contained in the electron magnet field of the earth is more like a picture of reality rather than any specific information, which is what radios and verbal communications transmit. So all possible information actually takes place inside the electron magnet field of the earth rather than inside a medium. The medium is only the message but the electron magnetic field of the earth is the picture of reality that gives it meaning. Once someone leaves the electron magnet field of the earth they are inside a spaceship, or the earth has been destroyed, so the picture of reality will be a lot different. |
|
| |
What color is your reality, [rcarty]? |
|
| |
Gerald Edelman had the same sort of idea about human consciousness although never went as far as to say that thoughts could be sent or received.
I wonder what color his reality was.
...and Tesla, I bet his reality was all rainbowy. Really hard to find passages about his perception of reality though, and I wonder about that too. |
|
| |
What really gets me is trying to imagine the beach or transition of EM field between a photon and electron. |
|
| |
Quantum, to me, implies an instantaneous square wave transition. This doesn't sit right with me. I think physics relies on measurement which is an attribute of a thing not an actual thing. The rest is just imagining a model that doesn't break these measurements. The more different ways of measuring and the more accuracy, the more the model has to conform. Whether the model is the reality, is a leap of faith. |
|
| |
//Whether the model is the reality, is a leap of faith.// |
|
| |
Einstein was effectively excluded from modern physics for
several decades, for seeking an "objective reality" (and, as a
secondary goal, a fully causal counterpart to quantum
mechanics). He has been somewhat redeemed since then, but
only somewhat. |
|
| |
Since the birth of quantum mechanics, it has been far from
clear what (if anything) it means to speak of "reality". And if a
"reality" exists, there's little reason to think it can be visualised
by a model which our classical brains can appreciate directly. |
|
| |
What your species thinks it perceives as "reality" is in fact a form
of "Dark Matter shadow" caused by pseudo-energy leaking
through from an orthogonally congruent antitachyon continuum. |
|
| |
It's probably best to visualise it as the Young's slit experiment,
minus the slit, screen and photon source, but using instead three
stringless banjos, 10,000,000 litres of fresh seawater, and a dead
gecko in a brown paper bag. |
|
| |
Oh god, we're not going for Schroedinger's Gecko... |
|
| |
I raise you one Schroedinger's Chameleon, which is so good at camouflage that no one knows if it's alive, dead or has just nipped out for a bit. |
|
| |
Are we quite sure Schrödinger is dead? |
|
| |
Open the coffin and find out ... |
|
| |
It is easy to say our brains are not complex enough to understand but usually it takes another perspective with a few more key ideas and the light can be seen. 3D got explained to the square's simple mind. |
|
| |
Does Plank's constant reflect the grain of the universe? The end of the turtles. |
|
| |
Whether it is more dimensions, or space isn't quite what we see it to be, attempts should be made to try and convey mechanisms (especially how charge effects other charge) to the public and the very young physicists. It can only stimulate thought and may uncover other ways of looking at reality. |
|
| |
Planck's Constant represents the computational
capacity of free space. |
|
| |
Scientists are forever unearthing new rules and laws,
and they forget that space has to try to keep up with
these rules and laws. At some point, it just gives up
and says "whatever", which is why things get fuzzy
and quantummy. |
|
| |
If you give a particular region of space enough time,
it can compute things to arbitrary precision (which is
why energy and time are conjugate variables).
Likewise, it's why position and momentum are
conjugates. |
|
| |
Equally, calculating all the ramifications of a
quantum collapse requires a huge amount of
processing power, which is why the collapse is
relative (ie, works only for one 'observer' or frame of
reference) rather than global. |
|
| |
All of modern physics makes perfect sense only when
you realize that free space has only so much
computational power. It's roughly one bit per cubic
Planck length per Planck time. |
|
| |
So we all agree that the energy, momentum, and the positions, in a defined interval ( the information ) is of 'something real' .An entity or entities (the turtle). It can't be a void since none of those attributes can be carried . The void doesn't even have a time because there is nothing to measure. You could probably define a void by it's bounding somethings. |
|
| |
It is totally up to speculation what those bits are. Widgets popping from another dimension. Mass being a facade in solid volume universe with energy being all patterns. |
|
| |
If we don't stimulate the imagination ask we won't come up with the explaining experiments. We can learn to manipulate the actions but wouldn't it be rule breaking to manipulate the mechanism. |
|
| |
// So we all agree that .... ( the information ) is of 'something real' // |
|
| |
No, because the information is the consequence if a unique
observation which cannot be replicated because the observed item
has been changed by the observing interaction. Thus all 'reality'
consists of a record of how something was, not how it is 'now'. |
|
| |
Not even a record, more a fleeting impression. |
|
| |
//So we all agree that the energy, momentum, and
the positions, in a defined interval ( the information )
is of 'something real' // |
|
| |
Not as such. Your error is in distinguishing the
"information" and the "something real". |
|
| |
It's even worse than you think ... |
|
| |
The observation (= interaction) occurs at time t = 0. |
|
| |
The "value" V0 of the observation is invalid at time t = delta-t
because the observation has modified the thing observed, which
then diverges from V0. |
|
| |
However, unless the information is used immediately i.e. at time
t = 0, it must be stored. To retrieve the information, even at t =
delta-t, involves a second observation/interaction, so the value v
returned is not the value V0 stored at t0 ... |
|
| |
So the only meaningful description of the object is the object
itself, and that is valid only if the object is not observed. So there
is no way of knowing if the object exists until it interacts, and
then the information arising from the interaction is ipso fact
invalid as an immediate and inevitable consequence of that
interaction. |
|
| |
You might want to go an lie down in a darkened room for a bit,
now. |
|
| |
[8th], that is a very Holbeckian view of qm. I think
you'll find that there are more useful formulations. |
|
| |
Of course it is, but the others aren't nearly so confusing, so we chose
that one. |
|
| |
In principle there may be a non-bad-science way to
do this, like filling the air with copper wires of the
correct length. |
|
| |
But, this is very much bad scienve -- at small
amplitudes waves passing through the air don't
affect each other, and large (saturation) levels are
impractical to create and would dampen, not boost,
the signal. |
|
| |
There has to be something real, between trying to observe and the obscured information received by the observation. If not, the observation information would directly relate to the observation method and this would equate to seeing nothing. |
|
| |
As many things work with the EM field, in 'space',there is definitely not nothing. |
|
| |
Remember, there is no "it" in "reality". |
|
| |
That's the American version, 'realty', you're thinking of. |
|
| |
{arrives late, dressed funny} |
|
| |
Back in the idea, I'm still stuck at this bit:
//a non signal generator that waves the EM field// |
|
| |
I mean, we're generating something that's not signal. Would it not, then, be noise, which would be bad (I'm think here of XKCD 654)? |
|
| |
Are we trying to boost the amplitude of a carrier wave from our wifi router? If not, then what? |
|
| |
re. the quantum boggling, I find it makes much more sense after Berkeley's "Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous" - although he is the sort of eighteenth century author that Sylvia Plath hated. You could paraphrase him as "Relax; it's just data - thank God." |
|
| |
//there is no "it" in "reality"// |
|
| |
Sorry, my simplistic mind can't accept the idea this observational representation we have life in, has no working hardware. |
|
| |
There or not there is the ultimate truism. If there and moving then the attributes of time and energy exist. This explains why observation is so tied to energy and time. |
|
| |
You need to come to terms with the fact that you don't exist, and
neither does anything else. Once you can get past that, it's all
much easier. |
|
| |
Annos not super helpful. But the mechanism Proposed in
the idea could work via stochastic resonance: adding noise
improves signal strength. A thing I do not know is if it must
be true nOise or if additional signals suffice. I bet it must
be true noise. |
|
| |
Sound propagation is helped globally by the correct density structure so why wouldn't there be a factor that helps electromagnetic transfer in a similar way. |
|
| |
Does more free electrons in a wire help signal transfer?
But, usually, the universe depends on the correct pattern as with a super conducting wire. |
|
| |
// the universe depends on the correct pattern // |
|
| |
There's your misunderstanding, right there. It's NOT a pattern. It IS fractal, chaotic, and stochastic. It is not random BUT neither is it predictable; it does follow "rules" and has "boundaries" but is a function of quantum uncertainty which cannot be scaled from the microscopic to the macroscopic. |
|
| |
Please, do try to keep up. |
|
| |
wjt I think this is a neat idea but noone interested
in this sort of thing will find it with the weird name
it has. What is __--- ? |
|
| |
It's the letter 'b' in Morse Code. Unlike the idea title, which is 'd'. |
|
| |
[8th] Isn't the fractal formula a pattern? Even some of your parts are due to DNA patterns of action . I suppose 'pattern' is my catch-all way of saying the recipes that make up the universe. |
|
| |
[bungston] I was trying for the electron orbital type graphic, a wifi environment boost representation. |
|
| |
Jutta's search engine should pick up words for those inclined to try and imagine the universe's tiniest grains and their hows. |
|
| |
Speak for yourself. My galaxies are all perfectly symmetrical, well-behaved, and always eat all their vegetables. |
|
| |
Even in the mess, to do what we want to do, we must find logical patterns to control and use. |
|
| |
If we want to step outside sols bubble, we must find a pattern to walk in spacetime at warp factor scales. To imagine a spacedrive is not good enough. Imagining how a space drive might work is closer but imagining electrons, photons and 'space' is closer still because it may stimulate a factual breakthrough. |
|
| |
"Don't worry, Ian, your family will be coming to see you at the weekend. Now, here's a nice cup of tea, and I'll just tuck your blanket over your knees. No, I'm not your daughter. No, that's not your son, it's a coatrack. No, there aren't going to be any more air raids. Now, you just .... oh dear. No, it's all right, I'll just go and get someone to help me change you ..." |
|
| |