/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14806713

>Why is the Sky Blue?
Because that's what they want you to believe.

>Why couldn't this theoretically work?
Because our Laws of Physics says "because reasons".
>What is Dark Matter/Energy exactly, and why we say it makes up 90%+ of the Universe?
We have no idea, and "because reasons".

>>14806713
In terms dimensional relationships between Perimeter/Surface-Area and Area/Volume; the smaller the dimensions, the greater the proportion of Circumference:Area, and the greater the the Volume:Surface-Area ratio will give relatively larger dimensions.

So the closer you get to the center of the object's ""field"", will have either exponentially increasing or exponentially decreasing effects until you arrive at a value where the "ratios" are flipped.
Like for instance:

>Circle, Radius = 1
>Circumference = 6.28
>Area =3.14
>.
>Circle, Radius = 2
>Circumference = 12.57
>Area = 12.57
>.
>Circle, Radius = 3
>Circumference = 18.85
>Area =28.27
>.
>Circle, Radius = 4
>Circumference = 25.13
>Area = 50.27

So these could be hard limits in the physical universe where properties are fundamentally at their limits with certain dimensions.

OP you're onto something but you are actually crazy so I suggest you learn how to do machining and try out your concepts on simple devices like bearings. If you can invent a durable bearing that supports itself on angular momentum grease flows and not physical bearings, you could revolutionize society.

>>14806819
I know picrel doesn't make any sense just by looking at it, but I have quite a few ideas of how to make some perpetual energy machines, and ""novel"" physical mechanisms.

>>14806713
My understanding of Gravity.

The Sun could not influence the Earths path (without their bodies directly touching) unless the Sun influenced a medium that the Sun and Earth touched.

Imagine there is no medium, and you toss the Sun into space, and toss the Earth toward it at an angle you would expect to be gravitly influenced, but there is no medium, so the Earth could pass by the Sun some miles distance and not be attracted to it (by gravity).

So, the attraction between bodies is due to the nature of a medium.

So how does the medium, the sun, and earths interaction with it, attract us more to the center of the earth than the surface;

If the macro gravity of Earth body attracted to Sun body, is due to Sun body touching Medium that touches Earth;

In what way is the Earth touching the medium, causing
#1, us to stick to the surface
#2, us to be more attracted to center of Earth than surface.

I sort of feel out and understand where you are coming from with your energy examples, but let's step a bit back and start with the simplest elements of the situation, the most raw physical facts; Body, movement, medium, movement, body, movement.

>>14807201
>Body, movement, medium, movement, body, movement.
>>14806713
I say this, because the way things exist and occur is important to understanding, on our path to knowledge we can't always ignore and ignore when we feel like it. I see no reason to ignore the facts of reality. Fact, the sun and earth are moving. Fact, the sun and earth are rotating. Is this relavant to understanding gravity, I don't know, maybe, possibly, there is a mystery we must carefully write down every clue.

I do not think the movement of these bodies can be ignored when considering gravity and it's fundamental mechanality.


So let's consider this:

If there was no medium inbetween surrouding sun and earth; and sun and earth were placed the distance they are from each other, would the earth move to the sun?

If there was no such medium; would bodies stick to the surface of earth?

If there was such medium, but sun and earth were placed at the distance they are from one another, but stationary, would the earth move toward the sun?
And would bodies stick to the earths surface?

>>14807238
Ill give answering these a shot.
>If there was no medium inbetween surrouding sun and earth; and sun and earth were placed the distance they are from each other, would the earth move to the sun?
No. There would be no causing physical touching force to move the earth, there would be Nothing in-between and surrounding the Earth and Sun to compel the bodies to move in any direction in any way.


>If there was no such medium; would bodies stick to the surface of earth?
Maybe, due to electromagnetic effects?

I have no clue, we seem to conclude: the idea of bodily attraction is due to an invisible (but physical, substancely existing) medium;
So if we remove this medium; can the body of Earth not stick together as the object it is?

If without the medium, Earth could stick together as the body it is, and objects could stick to it's surface, than perhaps objects sticking to the surface is not entirely due to the existence and interaction with medium.

Then there is the motions.


>If there was such medium, but sun and earth were placed at the distance they are from one another, but stationary, would the earth move toward the sun?

Hm. When bodies exist stationary within a medium (possibly different bodies react different ways) the body displaces the medium; the bodies volume occupied area the medium was existing in, the medium has to go somewhere.

Does this imply, if stationary, a body appeared in the middle of this medium, the medium that existed where the body now does would be compressed around the body? (Different mediums react different ways, how does this one act)

If a body had a lot of cracks and holes in it, would the medium go inside the body?

Are massive molecular bodies like the Earth like water strainers to the medium? Some more dense and solid than others let less or no medium inside?

I have a theory about Gravity(and other Particles/Fields)
I believe there are points tiers of the Earth where gravity becomes distorted from the Surface.

I believe that there is a Gravity "Field" that permeates the planet, and could maintain different gravitational zones by applying simple geometric observations in a practical way to theoretical models with testable and verifiable predictions.
If you assume that fields/forces can interact with each other on varying scales, then you can extrapolate some mathematical models.
Like, by taking the ratio of a circle's Circumference:Area, then you could find the minimum/maximum values that a given phenomenea will have, before it carries over to a characteristically different phenomenea, or particle, or field, or whatever.
For example, when a "particle"'s dimensions reach a value such that the circumference(or Surface-Area) is greater than it's Area(or Volume), then that might be where the cutoff is for that formula's applicability, and you shift-gears into the formula that picks up where the previous ends.

Or it could be the opposite of that, where the "particle/field" is stable until a certain ratio(s) are reached where in the area grows larger than the circumference.
This could certainly lead to "tiers" of energy levels where the perimeter:area of molecular particles are subject to the Rules of Ratio. Where their (sub)atomic dimensions can be assumed to have shaped-fields which are responsible for their given properties.
You can imagine overlapping fields that have similar rules, but operate at different "base lengths". So that if you imagine fields formed as concentric circles, then you can decrease the radius of each by "1", and there will be different effects marked by different benchmarks.

>>14807337
cntd.
So, depending on how much medium enters the body or not;

An amount of medium is displaced by the body and exists in comparative excess locally surrounding the body.

No physical reason is seen that if the Sun and Earth are placed in the medium at the distance they currently are, the Earth would have any physical forcing to travel to the Sun;
The Sun is still
The medium the Sun displaced is still, likely in excess around the Sun
The Earth is still
There is nothing forcing the Earth to move toward the Sun.


>Would bodies stick to surface of Earth

Maybe in such a scenario the displaced medium, would create a pressure barrier that squeezes Earth, wanting to fill the hole the body Earth is making in the medium.

>>14807351
Google Image search: Electron Microscope image of atom

I think you will find it interesting and relevant to your post. It's one of the more beautiful and enlightening experiences I have had

>>14807392
>Google Image search: Electron Microscope image of atom
Yeah, I feel like the current "Model" is approaching a lot of research the wrong way.
I believe that the "center" of the most basic individual particles are likely to be empty void, with an outer ring/shelled-layer that surrounds the pit.
No good reason for such claim, to me it just makes sense as I elaborated in further detail with the pic from: >>14807351
That's not to completely eliminate the possibility of an aether-like field, but I think trying to drop the obsession with Particles' "Mass"(or lack of Mass) should be replaced with a Model(s) that are more adaptable and representative of reality.

>>14807238
>If there was no medium inbetween surrouding sun and earth; and sun and earth were placed the distance they are from each other, would the earth move to the sun?
>If there was no such medium; would bodies stick to the surface of earth?
I think it depends on what counts as an empty medium; are we talking absolute void, or a virtually undetectable material?
Personally, I don't see any reason why a Void of Nothing is out of the question, but there's obviously observable proof that there are Forces which can produce Push/Pull Phenomena.
Personally, I think the basic principle behind Gravity has a good case to argue for, but I'm not quite sure I concur with just how far the Model claims to uphold.
Just like we have Quantum Gravity with Quantum Mechanics, I think "Celestial Gravity"(and other 'Tiers' of Gravity) must be considered before continuing with the assumption that "Gravity" works on the same scale, everyplace, and every time.
It just seems rather silly to impose Gravitational Observations that we experience on our Planet, and then project that onto the Largest Celestial Objects/Systems, and pretend that it just casually scales without having to properly scale the computing formula as well.

I agree that momentum/velocity/angular-rotation and other kinetic movements are actually critical variables that determine an object's properties. I think the Gravity experienced is largely due to the material composition, and kinetic activity. This produces certain Fields which interact with surrounding objects which manifests as Orbiting Planets. Or perhaps it's the Orbit itself which facilitates our Planet's rotation, which in turn helps create an Atmospheric/Magnetic Field that permeates up into Space.

>>14807337
>Does this imply, if stationary, a body appeared in the middle of this medium, the medium that existed where the body now does would be compressed around the body? (Different mediums react different ways, how does this one act)
>If a body had a lot of cracks and holes in it, would the medium go inside the body?
>Are massive molecular bodies like the Earth like water strainers to the medium? Some more dense and solid than others let less or no medium inside?
Yes, I am more inclined to believe that various 'Mediums' are more like Tessellated Fractal Pieces, which give rise to other properties like "Mass", "Charge", "Spin"; not the other way around.
I think studying the relationships between various 2D/3D Objects and the geometric configurations they form is the key to solving the different "Particles", and When/Where/How/Why we can expect to observe certain "Particles" with non-random accuracy.

>>14808067
>before continuing with the assumption that "Gravity" works on the same scale, everyplace, and every time
The problem with that is this: If we ASSUME that gravity works the same way at all scales and everywhere in the universe, then go out and make a bunch of observations of what we can see, it turns out ALL of our observations are 100% compatible with our assumption.

In other words there's never been any evidence to suggest that gravity isn't homogenous and isotropic.

>>14808099
>In other words there's never been any evidence to suggest that gravity isn't homogenous and isotropic.
Isn't that literally why they say over 90% of the Universe has stuff like Dark Matter?

And I don't think the Standard Model claims that Gravity works the same everywhere at every scale.

>>14808156
The standard model doesn't say anything at all about gravity tho.

>>14808168
>The standard model doesn't say anything at all about gravity tho.
Ok, then whoever the group or field-of-study that deifies(de[i]fy- not defy) Gravity are.

It's hard to keep track, because of the rampant Fraud that's everywhere...

>>14808213
Do what now?

>>14808239
>Do what now?
I was just saying that I feel like whoever the groups that hype Gravity Theory are, they're misinterpreting Gravity and seem unwilling to adapt.

Your inability to/attempts at grasping modern physics is beyond the scope of /sci/.

brb

>>14809621
>Your inability to/attempts at grasping modern physics is beyond the scope of /sci/.
I'm not trying to "grasp" modern physics.
I'm trying to improve it.

>>14810037
Welcome back

>>14807201
>>14807238
Did you respond to these yet?

I saw you did respond to some others but this is a real deep intricate Convo so I needed a break from reading your long intricate reply that triggers mine

>>14811822
>>14811647
I saw you responded and still I have not worked up the courage to enter that forrest

>>14813809
schizo + necro + L + ratio

>>14811822
>Did you respond to these yet?
I'll try to cobble together a presentable response later today.
>*Spoiler Alert: There will be some schizo Fluid-Mechanics Perpetual-NRG Tech that goes along with it.

Bump to save Thread from being Black-Hole'd.

Yes, what else about gravity and Electromagnetism and about the fundamental meaning of what particle and wave is.

Also draw a picture of the electro magnetic field and how an electron relates and reacts to it; draw magnets and how the EM field makes the magnet move.

Then draw non magnet objects, the sun and earth, and draw what they do to the surrounding space and fields, that makes the earth orbit the moving Sun

>>14816474
>>14813956
Also draw, electrons in atoms, and what causes EM radiation/waves to 'leave(?)' the atom/electron(?)

Draw the process of how EM waves are generated into space (and/or existence?)

>>14816474
>>14816479
I've got a mental-visualization of some of that stuff.

Idk, I'm really feeling like a perpetual energy generator with a relatively simple design is actually quite doable, and could possibly scale from being ~6in to potentially being the size of a planet with enough room/resources.

I know my schizo rambling isn't very good proof of this magic "Free NRG" generator, but it's actually a kind of "intuitive/obvious" low-hanging-fruit, that once you see it, you'll say "oh, duh!". Assuming it's actually feasible, and not a complete failure that is.
Could potentially "reshape" how we think of naval vessels and aircraft as well, but I could be jumping ahead of myself with the additional applications of the NRGenerator.

Tomorrow I'll make some doodles and post em.

>>14816762
You posted a lot of good pictures and drawings, that's why I asked for your drawings, no rush but hopefully someday soon you will give it a try. A picture says 1,000 words


draw a picture of the electro magnetic field and how an electron relates and reacts to it; draw magnets and how the EM field makes the magnet move.

draw non magnet objects, the sun and earth, and draw what they do to the surrounding space and fields, that makes the earth orbit the moving Sun


draw, electrons in atoms, and what causes EM radiation/waves to 'leave(?)' the atom/electron(?)

draw the process of how EM waves are generated into space (and/or existence?)

>>14815002
>reeeeee muh vanity thread
cringe
>40 replies, half of them from 1 IP
desperation

>>14807518
>That's not to completely eliminate the possibility of an aether-like field, but I think trying to drop the obsession with Particles' "Mass"(or lack of Mass) should be replaced with a Model(s) that are more adaptable and representative of reality.
Aether theory for Gravity is to express that you or anyone else cannot come up with a physical explanation as to how a celestial body causes another to orbit at a distance

All the word Aether is saying is: Body touches medium, body moves, medium moves, another body touching same medium moves

>>14818743
>All the word Aether is saying is: Body touches medium, body moves, medium moves, another body touching same medium moves
All spacetime field tensor is saying is: mass touches spacetime field tensor, spacetime field tensor moves, another mass touching spacetime field tensor moves

>>14816762
Draw how you think light travels from the Sun to Earth

>>14806714
who ever thought putting neon pink on a grey background was a bright idea needs to be lynched.

>>14806713

>>14818775
>>14818217
This

>>14806713
It just chases the center which doesn't actually exist in this frame of reference, so it 'moves' a little bit. And then since the center changed place, *sigh* again... it just chases the center which doesn't actually exist in this frame of reference(sPaCeTEiMe). It's trying to tell the truth, but like transcendentals exist, so that's like not cool.
There is an edge between the modulus of the light and the modulus of the elephant in the room.

>>14806830
>how to make some perpetual energy machines
Get baked and dream that shit up?

>>14819605
the ultimate redpill

How different would Gravity be if the solar system was motionless?

The space of the milky way Galaxy itself is revolving around the center, so this moves the Sun/solar system.

If you placed the solar system stationary in the milkyway, it would start to revolve around the center, like placing a rubber ducky in a flowing river.

But there are galaxies in which there is no smooth steady star orbits all in the same direction.

Why did some galaxies form rotational and some not?

And whats going on with the gravity field and gravity in the galaxies whose stars dont orbit a common center?

>>14820458
If you just put two masses, who according to raw abstract theory would attract one another, stationary some attractive distance away;

By what fathomable, describable, diagramable, simulational mechanics would the bodies be physically compelled to one another?

Imagine only 2 massive bodies existed in the entire universe. And you placed them within range wherein the abstract notion of Gravity says they should move towards each other. How is it physically explainable.

Ok, they obviously exist in some material substance field; and somehow their bodies interact with this material substance field in such a way, that a path of least resistance is made that unites the bodies, instead of the path of least resistance being to stay put.
So, physically, mechanically, causally, how

>>14820468
In reality the planets and stars are not motionless.

So if you get G to work under motionless starting conditions; under moving conditions it should be thrown off, unless youve missed something or misplaced values somewhere

>>14806713
retard
this is the dumbest shit i've ever seen
you're so dumb

>>14816762
How was your weekend frenanon? Have any breakthroughs or think about cool things lately?

>>14806714
>buoyancy
sound like flat tard nonsense

Here's more Sircle Ctuph

>>14811822
>>14813809
>>14816474
>>14816479
>>14818217
>>14818743
>>14818771
>>14818775
>>14820389
>>14820406
>>14820458
>>14820468
>>14820722
See picrel.
Particles are like the "End of a Pendulum", and the "Wave" Pattern they follow is the Pendulum's trajectory.

>>14820428
>Get baked and dream that shit up?
Essentially, yes.
>>14819595
>who ever thought putting neon pink on a grey background was a bright idea needs to be lynched.
It's called artistic flair, you uncultured cup of dirt.

>>14821036
>retard
>this is the dumbest shit i've ever seen
>you're so dumb
That's it buddy.
You're finished.
You're done.
You just made my list.
Big mistake bucko.
Don't think I won't remember your name "Anonymoos"; my IQ makes people say "checked", and my personality makes them say "Take Meds", so I'm the wrong guy to cross, pal.

>>14822351
>How was your weekend frenanon? Have any breakthroughs or think about cool things lately?
It was fine, thanks. Yea, I think I added a few more brush-strokes to some of the mental images I've been pondering; but it's hard to know if I added any aesthetically pleasing "Happy LIttle Trees", or if I'm just throwing glass at the ground and calling it "Abstract Art".

>>14822606
no u

>>14822816
>See picrel.
I mean see picrel in: >>14822778
But that pic is also probably somewhat relevant as well.

>picunrel

>>14818743
>Aether theory for Gravity is to express that you or anyone else cannot come up with a physical explanation as to how a celestial body causes another to orbit at a distance
Well, isn't that just assumed to be an inverse-squared relation?
What if there's a "cut-off" point, where a different force over-rides the "Gravitational Force"; like how at close distances, Magnets can negate Gravity and hang upside down without falling down.

What if there's a Celestial-Force that is really only noticeable on extremely large scales?
I think "Relativity" is in the right direction, but I think it just took a couple wrong turns along the way. I think if we start modifying the parameters(or just completely redo it), it would be a bit more accurate.
Like, I agree that the Physics of Nature operate on a "Sliding Scale"", but I'm not quite sure I follow some of the given implications that are extrapolated through flawed formulas.

Pic in >>14822778 kind of ties into that from my understanding- referring to the "Rotatio"(Rotation+Ratio); comparing the 'Area/Thickness' of the Circumference's Shell, and the 'Internal Area' comprised of the interior of the Circumference.
>picrel is because of pic in: >>14822816

>>14822816
3/10 pasta, but I am listening to the final countdown and wondering if arrested development was really that good, or I was just... idk
btw, do you know why you're so dumb for reals tho?
like for real?
because there is a legit reason
i was also retarded in this area before

>>14822898
>do you know why you're so dumb for reals tho?
>like for real?
>because there is a legit reason
>i was also retarded in this area before
Do tell

>>14822778
>>14822816
When contemplating the consistency of the speed of light, let me ask and let one smarter answer:
Is there any example of a type of medium or material that propagates, or propagates energy through it the same speed every time? Water, air, metal?

If a mechanical arm hit a large metal cube, with the same force and energy multiple times, the vibrational energy would propagate through the metal the same velocity each time?

And if the robot hand hit the metal cube with a different force each time, it would propagate through the metal the same speed, but with different energy?

>>14822816
>>14822778
Do you really think light travels from the sun to earth like a wiggling wave? What makes it move like that?

I want to see an animation simulation of super slow motion, EM wave being generated in the sun, and what it looks like leaving the (however it's generated in the) atom/electron, on its way to Earth;
How it is moving from sun to earth, and what is making it move that way

>>14822898
>btw, do you know why you're so dumb for reals tho?
I'm too dumb to know how dumb I am.
It's a blessing and a curse.

>>14822931
>And if the robot hand hit the metal cube with a different force each time, it would propagate through the metal the same speed, but with different energy?
Yea, sure why not?
If you're driving 10mph on a treadmill moving 5mph in the opposite direction, then you'll only go 5mph forward.
So if you think of the "wave" kind of like a treadmill, then you have to consider the the other waves currently propagating through the medium.

>>14822936
>Do you really think light travels from the sun to earth like a wiggling wave? What makes it move like that?
It might not even be a neatly-organized "wave" like an EM wave is typically portrayed as. It's trajectory could look sort of like 'squiggles', or choppy Ocean Waves, depending on the physical properties like "size/shape/momentum".
But you could foreseeably calculate and predict it's position/momentum if you have 2 entangled particles, and then measure the where/when one of the particles is "observed" in order to accurately predict where the other particle will be "observed", as well as have knowledge of it's speed and when it will be arrive at whatever is used to measure it.

>>14822965
>it would propagate through the metal the same speed, but with different energy?
Err, I mean to say that it could travel the same speed, but it could also possibly have very slight varying velocities depending on the momentum phase of the individual particles

>>14822965
>It might not even be a neatly-organized "wave" like an EM wave is typically portrayed as.
>It's trajectory could look sort of like 'squiggles', or choppy Ocean Waves, depending on the physical properties like "size/shape/momentum".
OP from the thread: >>14821787 might be relevant to this

MESSAGE TO ALL THE AUTISTS OF /POL/

Leave the doom-mongs, demoralisation shills and narcissists behind and come join AUT/POL the AUTIST POLITICAL NETWORK GENERAL.
A place dedicated to giving a space for the highly intelligent autists of /pol/ to discuss politics, science, history and ways to harness our skills and abilities.

Follow this thread link below:

>>393985466
>>393985466
>>393985466

>>14822928
>>14822965
rotations don't exist (in this context)

>>14823544
This is how you link thread properly:
>>>/pol/393985466
(note that you use three >>> and then the board name)

>>14823682
>rotations don't exist (in this context)
What doesn't exist?

>>14822965
Will respond later

See, the problem with OP is that he has not justified a reason to go anywhere.
You need to justify why you want to go from point A to point B. Because point A is just as fine a point as point B.

Where do you have to go? Is there something you need to do?

>>14806713
There are many unequal phenomenons but there is a special unitary matrices in multiple dimensions.

>>14824138
rotations don't exist

>>14825356
You're basically asking why is the sky blue, why does an apple fall to the ground instead of being ejected into outer space, why is the ocean made of water instead of a giant tennis shoe, why does hot air rise?

See, the problem isn't that I provided a reasonable, albeit it being a silly "well obviously, duh!" observation; the problem is that you didn't read this from a gatekeeping paywalled secret club, obfuscated with scribbled-runes and imaginary assumptions implied as objective facts.

>not justified a reason to go anywhere
I didn't claim that this explains literally everything in the universe. I honestly don't know what you're expecting here. Do I have to build a computer that simulates literally the entire universe, including the simulating computer itself?
Do you even have any actual objections to anything in my posts, or are you just being difficult for fun?

>>14825387
OK?
I'm honestly not sure what this is supposed to mean.

>>14825434
>rotations don't exist
OK, but that's actually not true.
Or are you saying there's no such thing as a 'Right Turn', and only 3 'Left Turns' are real?

>>14816762

What of the Sun makes the Light? How does it do it? How does light travel from the Sun to Earth?

>>14827410
nuclear reactions in the sun produce energy (photons) which eventually reach the suns surface and are emitted as light.

>>14827415
>nuclear reactions in the sun produce energy (photons)
How, in what form are the photons in before they are produced, where does their body come from?

>>14826399
>OK, but that's actually not true.
show me a rotation
you can't
rotations. don't. exist.
there is no such thing as a fundamental rotation
there's no particle going "wait a minute, i'm not traveling in a straight line and having my direction changed, i'm rotating!"
> Or are you saying there's no such thing as a 'Right Turn', and only 3 'Left Turns' are real?
I am saying that rotations don't exist, and that we only describe them as a simpler way of describing what is really happening.
If you take a packet of cigarettes and spin them on the ISS, we say they are rotating, but in reality, they are not rotating, and there is no "rotating" force that exists. it is all straight lines being continuously changed
> hurrr well durrr i already kn-
no, no you didn't and neither do 99% of sciencemongs. rotations aren't real and we need some way to know when we're changing phase space to talk about something that seems useful to use, despite not being fundamental.
> 2023 after 11 arduous months of discussion: ok so rotations don't exist, but what about that one particle right at the center of the mass?
jfc.. first the com won't align to a particle, and second particles aren't atomic, they are also not rotating.

>>14830566
That doesn't make any sense.
Rotations are an observable phenomena visible for anyone to see.
Oscillating, phase shifting, rotating, whatever you want to call it, rotating obviously effects linear momentum. That's how cars turn instead of just going straight until they hit a wall.

>>14808099
>it turns out ALL of our observations are 100% compatible with our assumption.
and those observations are meaningless. The Law is universal, you need universal evidence (accounting past, present, future too) to prove it. It's impossible

I do faintly remember that I read that we can through high energy plasma get gravity out of space and we created a gravity collapse. I even think we even proved that in small scale tests

>>14832651
>I do faintly remember that I read that we can through high energy plasma get gravity out of space and we created a gravity collapse. I even think we even proved that in small scale tests
What exactly does this mean? Like Plasma Hover-Boards?

>>14833438
I'm no plasma physicist, nor do I have the knowledge to know anythign about it.
I could built the machine for it tho, thats something I learned with my degree

Gonna have to ponder some of these posts than respond