sorry was replying to the boomer before Jada rudely cut me off
Do you have any insight besides being slick and rephrasing my post with the added legal bonus of commercially useful
why boomer?
So, I had wanted to create what I think is called a dynamic frequency indicator for a playlist (yes I came up with that term myself), and I see that such algorithm already exist. I asked ChatGPT for a slightly less sophisticated version of the mathematics and it gave it to me in terms of angular frequency,
which I understand and have seen before.
ω=2πf
I am interested in nonnegative frequencies.
I asked if this concept applies to adding and subtracting members to a dynamic group, and I think it realized it misunderstood me.
so, that math would be :
Using the formula:
Cn=C0+n×adjustment
Where:
Cn is the count after n adjustments,
C0 is the initial count,
adjustment is either +1 or −1
n is the number of times you've added or subtracted.
Example:
If you start with C0=10, and you add 1 for 3 times:
C3=10+3×1=C3=10+3×1=13
if instead, you start with C0=10, and you subtract 1 for 2 times:
C2=10+2×(−1)=8=C210+2×(−1)=8
It suggested to me introducing stepwise rate of change (smooth transition) —looks like this is really by derivative Calculus would be
Cn=C0+Δ×n
Where:
Δ is a small change (for example, 0.1, 0.5, etc.).
n is the number of steps.
And limits (also a derivative calculus concept)
Cmin≤Cn≤Cmax
Coding looks like it is where someone would go from here but I was interested in the pure mathematics
It’s nothing that sophisticated
Your thoughts?
Science is at odds with itself as it should be. Verification in this case was never necessary.What do you mean? Science is not at odds with itself, for the most part, insofar as well established theories go. Theories that are not well established are a different story.
Of course it is. Science is open to changing it's mind on it's own findings and it has multiple times, this is basic knowledge.
It wasn't hit by a plane.
3 towers fell down that day. Most people don't know that.
I remember seeing tower 7 fall that day. It fell down on it's own footprint without any structural resistance like a controlled demolition.
Some scientists or engineers had to say what they needed to save their careers.My suggestion is to ask Dimitri from Russia.
The frame of those building were constructed with A36 steel, which has a melting point of 2,590–2,670°F.
Airplane fuel is said to be the cause of the collapses for all 3 towers and it burns at 800°F to 1,500°F.
Again.
No "steel frame" building in all of human history has ever collapsed due to a fire.
WTC was also the most steel reinforced buildings in the world.
You can make a model building out of wood at any scale, and no matter how many times this experiment is ran, it wouldn't fall on it's own footprint if it were on fire, Being made out of wood it will fall, but nothing like a controlled demolition.
You really need to seek someone with a degree for something like this eh Legga ?
Of course it is. Science is open to changing it's mind on it's own findings and it has multiple times, this is basic knowledge.
Im not at odds with this, insofar as the scientific process self corrects, which is what I guess you meant. The well established theories are supposed not to be overturned in major ways if you believe in scientific realism.
So I guess we agree... more or less.
The frame of those building were constructed with A36 steel, which has a melting point of 2,590–2,670°F.
Airplane fuel is said to be the cause of the collapses for all 3 towers and it burns at 800°F to 1,500°F.
Again.
No "steel frame" building in all of human history has ever collapsed due to a fire.
WTC was also the most steel reinforced buildings in the world.
Of course it is. Science is open to changing it's mind on it's own findings and it has multiple times, this is basic knowledge.Im not at odds with this, insofar as the scientific process self corrects, which is what I guess you meant. The well established theories are supposed not to be overturned in major ways if you believe in scientific realism.
So I guess we agree... more or less.
Not all scientists agree with one another when it comes to certain things, like global warming being caused by trapped emissions. While the Sun was reported to be getting hotter and all planets in the solar system is warming on Planet Earth it's said it's our fault. Science knows The Earth has been hotter 5 times after each ice age, but now. they stopped talking about the Sun getting hotter in Early 2000. Al Gore was an advocate for a Greener Earth but his goal was to impose a carbon tax. Other parts of the world actually does have a carbon tax. It's a power grab.
When Stephen Hawking changed his mind on Black Hole theory, he announced it on a stage in a room filled with scientists, and they were really upset.
What makes a theory well established is how famous or adopted it is. It still remains a theory. Evolution is a theory and it remains so cause we don't have any missing links between us a Lucy's bones.
The frame of those building were constructed with A36 steel, which has a melting point of 2,590–2,670°F.
Airplane fuel is said to be the cause of the collapses for all 3 towers and it burns at 800°F to 1,500°F.
Again.
No "steel frame" building in all of human history has ever collapsed due to a fire.
WTC was also the most steel reinforced buildings in the world.That's interesting. No steel frame building in all of human history had ever collapsed due to a fire. That would make the hypothesis extraordinary.And it does, because it's true.
Now if we were to follow the scientific method, the question would be what the alternative hypotheses are. One possibility would be controlled demolition. If that were the cause, then the question would be why was there no residue of explosives found, and who had access to the debris.Any known large scale demolition would leave residue. Yet there was none reported.But it would explain the collapse, and the nature of the collapse.
So we're in a situation where we have two extraordinary explanation. One requiring us to accept that this was the only building in human history to collapse due to a fire, and another requiring us to accept a secret demolition operation that left no reported residue, despite the fact that all known demolition would leave detectable hypotheses.Any third hypotheses, amyone?
I seen enough to know, what we saw on 911 and the towers and fire won't happen again. It doesn't add up cause 3 buildings collapsed without any structural resistance and landed on it's own footprint which is impossible even for a house of cards, and we're talking high grade industrial steel, which is retardedly strong beyond an average person's imagination.
Under the WTC was the Marriott hotel. It got covered in rubble from the towers, and people in there survived due the structural integrity of, untampered steel.
Let's also not forget, the Pentagon was also attacked that day, we're told a plane crashed right into it, but it left a small hole, and no airplane debris. wingspan imprint, and no imprint from the engines. Two 5,000 lb engines would've made their own holes and it would've went deep into the building.
In my opinion 911 was a false flag to give the military industrial and powerful people an excuse to go to war. In Iraq and Afghanistan. 2 decades later corporations, weapons makers, made trillions of dollars, people got super rich from that. It gets crazier when you learn more about Osama Bin Laden. He also said he had nothing to do with 911, but he know it was time for war. He used to be part of the CIA, and was even friends with the Bush family. Osama's brother Salem bin Laden and George Bush founded an oil company in Texas.
We saw Biden pull out of Afghanistan, and they left ALL military hardware behind for the Taliban, paid for by the American people. As the Military rebuilds, Americans will pay for that, and Obama did the same thing in Iraq, left everything behind.
In Afghanistan something like 80,000 Humvees is the only number I remember. But they also got US made uniforms, night vision goggle and all kinds of military toys. I think because the forces behind this war, want them to start shit.
Not all scientists agree with one another when it comes to certain things, like global warming being caused by trapped emissions. While the Sun was reported to be getting hotter and all planets in the solar system is warming on Planet Earth it's said it's our fault. Science knows The Earth has been hotter 5 times after each ice age, but now. they stopped talking about the Sun getting hotter in Early 2000. Al Gore was an advocate for a Greener Earth but his goal was to impose a carbon tax. Other parts of the world actually does have a carbon tax. It's a power grab.
When Stephen Hawking changed his mind on Black Hole theory, he announced it on a stage in a room filled with scientists, and they were really upset.
What makes a theory well established is how famous or adopted it is. It still remains a theory. Evolution is a theory and it remains so cause we don't have any missing links between us a Lucy's bones.
Thermite is what they use to melt or cut steel when demolishing a steel frame building.
Some sources will ague the NIST report is sound, and others will say no thermite was found, but if you look you'll find imagery of it. People cleaning ground zero reported to have found molten steel days after the collapse.
Understandably, some people won't handle the truth of what happened that day, but the evidence is solid.
Apparently, the official report did not originally mention chemical residues of thermite. However, the dust that settled on other buildings was used by independent bodies to analyse the chemical composition. Those analyses did conclude that there was evidence of these red/gray chips, aluminum/iron/oxygen/silicon/carbon, and iron microspheres, which are all consistent with thermite use. But the findings are debated, because some folks say that it's also consistent with fires.
I wouldn't claim definitive evidence of thermite use, if the evidence can be explained by conventional means too. However, I would claim that the hypothesis that there was demolition is less extraordinary if the hypothesis doesn't require one to believe that there was vast demolition effort that apparently left no trace. Its still surprising that NIST and the other official bodies didn't find anything, and I'd not be too quick to say that they were also in on a conspiracy. That would still not be cery plausible to me.
I seen enough to know, what we saw on 911 and the towers and fire won't happen again. It doesn't add up cause 3 buildings collapsed without any structural resistance and landed on it's own footprint which is impossible even for a house of cards, and we're talking high grade industrial steel, which is retardedly strong beyond an average person's imagination.
Yeah I give you that it would be extraordinary for wtc7 to be the only high grade steel building to have ever collapsed only due to fire. But that's not where science stops, it would look for alternatives until theres a consistent lore that matches all the facts. The alternative hypothesis is at least equally unlikely, and therefore requires massive evidence.
Having said that, I'd actually lean "slightly" in favor of the demolition hypothesis, maybe 60-40, but I cant make that leap without having a consistent story in my mind. How much thermite was used? Would it avoid obvious detection even by independent bodies? Did NIST lie or were they mistaken? Who put the thermite there and how?
Not all scientists agree with one another when it comes to certain things, like global warming being caused by trapped emissions. While the Sun was reported to be getting hotter and all planets in the solar system is warming on Planet Earth it's said it's our fault. Science knows The Earth has been hotter 5 times after each ice age, but now. they stopped talking about the Sun getting hotter in Early 2000. Al Gore was an advocate for a Greener Earth but his goal was to impose a carbon tax. Other parts of the world actually does have a carbon tax. It's a power grab.The ice age is "probably" caused by the Milankovitch cycle, based on our current understanding:Pretty good correlation huh?I guess the Devil's hole experiment is offering some contradictory evidence, but it's a local measurement so probably much less reliable than the ocean temperature, which are supposed to be measuring the global environment.No reliable evidence I know of explains the current heating due to solar activity or the current orbital cycle.
When Stephen Hawking changed his mind on Black Hole theory, he announced it on a stage in a room filled with scientists, and they were really upset.Well, it's to be expected as a first reaction.Which theory specifically?
What makes a theory well established is how famous or adopted it is. It still remains a theory. Evolution is a theory and it remains so cause we don't have any missing links between us a Lucy's bones.That's a part of it, but it's more foundational than that. It's when a hypothesis is tested and agrees with a vast body of observations and connects to the entire scientific lore with no major contradictions. It's extremely, extremely difficult to meet that criterion with any theory, which is why science is so damn difficult. However, when a theory does that, that is when it becomes well established. Usually, it's also when it becomes famous or adopted, but the fundamental cause of what makes a theory well established is not its fame or use, though there's a strong correlation, but rather how well it fits into the scientific lore and all the evidence.There are usually missing pieces here and there at the boundaries. That's where the scientific lore evolves. The idea is then that over time the theory becomes less wrong, or that we approximate towards the correct theory.What I worry about is that the scientific lore could well fit all observations but could still be radically different from the "Truth". Take quantum mechanics for example, all of classical quantum mechanics are consistent with the Copenhagen interpretation, objective wave collapse theory, superdeterminism, many worlds, Bohmian mechanics, and relational quantum mechanics. But the interpretations and implications for the nature of reality are entirely different for all of these hypotheses.That's why some people are switching into this lame philosophy of constructivism: We just make models that are good at predicting stuff; there's no ultimate truth, and the ultimate truth doesn't matter as long as we make predictions. We never get to any truth, and we can only say that we are "less wrong" than we were before. I think this philosophy is spitting in the face of classical scientific realism, but it's hard to argue against it. It's the philosophy of the dispassionate young who, in my humble opinion, gave up on a noble goal just for the sake of appearing smart and rational, as opposed to having any real interest in science, knowledge, or truth. This is people like Inquirer.
I'm open to theory, but I'm not quick to argue it if it's a theory.
When things are proven, they're not longer theory.
One can be onto something with their findings, but parts of it will still be mysterious. Until then, it isn't worth the time to debate if it's true on not, though some people will argue theories, that's faith.
