Consciousness: what is the definition of consciousness? Living being: what is the definition of a living being? what is the definition of a being? The actual answers to these questions are merely CONVENTIONS! What might be living by your judgement can be dead by others. The question of consciousness has came by a long time for people in the computer industry, specifically artificial intelligence. Lets take a closer look there: scientists are aiming at building up robots with intelligent reactions - robots with consciousness! Consciousness is defined as simply having the ability to respond to changing factors in the surrounding environment. Robots achieve that through sensors and intelligent algorithms. Humans have been able to do that with their senses (seeing, hearing, touching). So here is my challenge question: if computers (robots) where developed with the ability to move around, think, respond, and have consciousness - even more advanced algorithms that enable it to feel, judge, invent, and perform other human-like actions... In what ways are they less alive than us? ..... "Well, for GOD's sake, they're just metal and electricity!", someone might scream... My question now to that guy is: why do u consider an intelligent action from a being made up of organic material like C,S,N,...etc, more living than another being that can come up with other intelligent actions but with a small difference of being made up of iron and silicon??
A similar pitfall arises: humans have long been searching for life on other planets. But do they have a clue for what they are searching for? Should we expect extraterrestrial life-forms to be made up of organic material like carbon? Does organic material as defined by our chemistry stand for the only substance of life? Or better say, why is carbon considered more living than say iron? In our world we say that we are made of organic material, and us together with creatures having same characteristics being classified as living (eg. animals, plants, bacteria ... etc.), yet things made up of iron are not living (eg. robots). [This view is rejected by Alternative biochemistry where the classical carbon-based biochemistry is called "Carbon chauvinism"]
Looking at the picture from a lower level we can see that humans are no more living than a robot.... Ohh heck, we are no more living than the keyboard i am typing on! Our consciousness is nothing more than electrical signals going through our heads, combined with our analytical and creativity capabilities have been doing stuff. The concept is simple yet tricky for those who never thought that way. This explains why i disregard biology: it gives existance to things of null reality.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Saturday, July 15, 2006
The Servitude Of Truth
Truth is a mean, rather than a goal: A mean to make rational decisions and well-informed choices to enhance our experiences and favor those pleasant ones... Lets consider the basic definition of Satanism: It aims at understanding the mechanics of life so we can get through it, so we can make best use of things in our hands.
Knowledge is power: This is the main claim... But we dont sacrifice the end for a mean, do we? Its stupid if we do, but sometimes one gets too carried away with the mean that they forget the end!!!
Knowledge is power: This is the main claim... But we dont sacrifice the end for a mean, do we? Its stupid if we do, but sometimes one gets too carried away with the mean that they forget the end!!!
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Functional Analysis Of The Matrix
Trinity: The Matrix isnt real!
Cypher: I disagree Trinity: I think the Matrix could be more real than this world... (source)
Lets first define what "functional" means: Any system can be described in terms of inputs, outputs, and internal states only! Thats the full definition... But what does that mean? This means that we strip intermediate states and processes and focus only on what some call a "black-box" that defines the system as the output relating to input! Within this view we can define a human in terms of senses (inputs) and feelings, emotions, actions, moods, and other mental states (outputs)...
Our nervous system transmits neurological signal to the brain which induces our consciousness, and after analyzing incoming signal produces an intelligent reaction that may consitutes emotional states... These neurologcal signals are actually electrical signals, but once our initial senses have been converted into electrical signals the real source of this signal cannot be verified nor reproduced... If we imagine our brains as a system where both inputs and outputs are electrical signals then we can understand that if identical inputs are provided within equivalent internal states then it is only logical to guess that identical output will follow!!
The Matrix does exactly what the above system aims at... The Matrix consitutes of internal states that are translated into electrical pulses identical to those if the internally described state was actual, then it feeds this input to the brain, which in turns modifies its own internal state as well as providing output that is used to update the internal state of the Matrix!!
Based on this view we can see that as long as the brain is concerned the input regardless of its actual source is what it constitutes as "reality"... Additionally humans are concerned with emotions, and whether you are actually fucking a gorgeous guy\girl or just stimulated to believe so doesnt matter as long as you are feeling ecstatic!!
Saturday, July 08, 2006
What Is The Matrix
Morpheus: Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.
Neo: We are now inside a computer program!
Neo: This..... This isnt real!
Morpheus: What is 'real'? How do you define 'real'? If you're talking about what you can feel, smell, taste, and see then 'real' is simply electrical signal interpreted by your brain!
Morpheus: What is the Matrix? Control.
Morpheus: The Matrix is a computer-generated dreamworld built to keep us under control to change a human being into this\(a battery)...
Neo: No! I dont believe it! Its impossible!
(A boy bends a spoon without even touching it)
(The boy hands the spoon to Neo)
Boy: Dont try to bend the spoon, thats impossible! Instead only try to realize the truth!
Neo: What truth?!
Boy: There is no spoon!
Trinity: The Matrix isnt real!
Cypher: I disagree Trinity: I think the Matrix could be more real than this world... (source)
The Matrix presents a version of an old philosophical fable: the brains in a vat (with some spice to make a cool film). Since its not easy to explain all aspects here, read more in the given link!
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Debating Theistic Views {Stub}
The comments that follow pose debates about the validity of theistic views... This post is a place holder for those debates!
Skepticism Is True - by Abraham Meidan
Skepticism is true, is the name of a book and a position argumented for by Abraham Meidan... The introduction of this book has been provided to enlight readers of the different aspects to skepticism as a philosophical hypothesis! Its a light read if you get acquainted by few terms used in that section... I'd say its a must read!
I am a supporter of skepticism, and soon there will be quite a few posts in this regard dealing with the topic from various points of view....
Click here to read the introduction (PDF)
I am a supporter of skepticism, and soon there will be quite a few posts in this regard dealing with the topic from various points of view....
The main theses of the book are:
1. All statements are neither certain nor plausible. In other words: skepticism is true.
2. Skepticism, as formulated above, does not imply any absurd conclusions (in contrast to the view commonly held by philosophers).
3. People do not choose their beliefs. What we believe is determined by psychological processes.
4. People believe in statements that minimize the extent of the unexpected events of which they are aware. (source)
Click here to read the introduction (PDF)
Saturday, July 01, 2006
Defining Right And Wrong
The right\wrong value of an action is defined as when consequences of an action coincides the purpose of that action, or more simply said: when an action serves its purpose....
Within this definition we find that the rightness of an action is determined by its consequences as well as its purpose... Consider a simple cheating example: PersonX wants a higher mark in a certain multiple-choice exam, he may choose to cheat. One possible scenario is that he copies the correct answer from his neighbor and thus obtain an extra mark. Another scenario is that he is caught and is given a ZERO mark! The two scenarios when considered in isolation connotates that cheating in the first scenario is right, while in the second it is wrong...
This subjective view of what is wrong should not be confused with my previous -objective- allegation that nothing can go wrong which defines rightness as factualness! To elaborate, everything that actually happens serves its natural purpose - whatever that is!
PS: This post does NOT necessarily represent a worldwide view
Within this definition we find that the rightness of an action is determined by its consequences as well as its purpose... Consider a simple cheating example: PersonX wants a higher mark in a certain multiple-choice exam, he may choose to cheat. One possible scenario is that he copies the correct answer from his neighbor and thus obtain an extra mark. Another scenario is that he is caught and is given a ZERO mark! The two scenarios when considered in isolation connotates that cheating in the first scenario is right, while in the second it is wrong...
This subjective view of what is wrong should not be confused with my previous -objective- allegation that nothing can go wrong which defines rightness as factualness! To elaborate, everything that actually happens serves its natural purpose - whatever that is!
PS: This post does NOT necessarily represent a worldwide view
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
The Steady State
Every unstable state experiences spontaneous change to a more stable state usually called its natural state... Once an isolated system reaches its natural state it stops changing, although usually a system never reaches its natural state but only approaches it as time goes to infinity (usually exponentially)!
Several real life theories employ this model: The universe as a whole system aproaches a natural state of an all-free energy evenly distrubuted over the universe, this effect is described through the Chaos theory where every change frees some energy and helps distrubute the energy within the universe evenly...
According to Marxism - within my very limited (and probably flawed) understanding of it (which I would appreciate a more knowledgeable person to enlighten), a socio-economic natural state is obtained when all power is fairly distributed where class struggle would be eliminated (this state called communism)!
Several real life theories employ this model: The universe as a whole system aproaches a natural state of an all-free energy evenly distrubuted over the universe, this effect is described through the Chaos theory where every change frees some energy and helps distrubute the energy within the universe evenly...
According to Marxism - within my very limited (and probably flawed) understanding of it (which I would appreciate a more knowledgeable person to enlighten), a socio-economic natural state is obtained when all power is fairly distributed where class struggle would be eliminated (this state called communism)!
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Philosophy, et cetera
Take a look into an intellectual, philosophical, and interesting dimension: Check this blog
The Sex-Maid Of The Lord
Disclaimer: Blasphemous Content
The story according to the Christian Bible:
The way it really was:
Mary, every girl envies you: Fucked by God.. What an honor!
PS: Stories in this entry are fictional
The story according to the Christian Bible:
{1: 26} And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, {1: 27} To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary. {1: 28} And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, [thou that art] highly favoured, the Lord [is] with thee: blessed [art] thou among women. {1: 30} And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. {1: 31} And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. {1: 34} Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? {1: 38} And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
source: The Christian Bible - The New Testament / Luke 26-38 (PDF)
The way it really was:
{1: 26} And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, {1: 27} To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary. {1: 28} And the angel came in unto her, and said: "Hello Virgin, the Lord has been pleased by your extreme naivety: You have a hymen, and therefore the Lord has chosen you. {1: 30} And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: The Lord has a small penis, it won't hurt at all. Besides his penis is so small, it can't possibly break your hymen! {1: 31} And, behold, the Lord has not touched a woman in ages, and is very horney. His dick is loaded with semen that he hopes would be fertile enough to make you pregnant. This son will be called JESUS because he will save the Lord's reputation from being called infertile. {1: 34} Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? {1: 35} And the angel said: "See Mary, this is the point; You have not seen a man and so you are in desperate need for the Lord's small penis" {1: 38} And Mary said, Behold the sex-maid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
Mary, every girl envies you: Fucked by God.. What an honor!
PS: Stories in this entry are fictional
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
World Cup Rants
Many people enjoy football matches, others only watch world cup because of its big-event status that only occurs once every four years... Thats all ok, and doesnt piss me off: But what really piss me off are those (girls) who cheer for a team (usually Italy) because it includes "hot players"... My suggestion is: If watching hot guys is the primary goal i suggest renting a porn film -preferably gay porn- and you'll be assured not be let down!
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Untold Weakness
Stone Sour in "Orchids":
Don't - try to be the one - person
Who has stayed - just to say
They never left me!
Aggravated, complicated, someone say it
God, I never learn
I have nothing left for you
You left me with nothing (Full lyrics)
Conspiracy Theories
Conspiracy theories is a collective term coined for a wide range of skeptical claims that gained momentum throughout history, although may have not been supported by positive evidence... Conspiracy theories are abundant in politics, by regular people skeptic of the governments accusing them of conspiracies. One such conspiracy theories are the anti-semetic theories regarding Jews taking over the world, other conspiracy theories have been coined up about the assassination of John Kennedy or the inter-governmental collaboration to eradicate evidence of underground existance of aliens!!
Apart from political conspiracy theories there are various philosophy-oriented theories usually called "Philosophical skepticism" in order to distinguish them from the more dominant political conspiracy theories; The most popular philosophical skepticism is the dream skepticism: The eternal question if our lives were nothing but a dream that felt like reality!
Finally, conspiracy theories have an important role in science-fiction... Numerous writters have established ground basis for skeptic science-fiction; The film (triology of) "The Matrix" (my all-time favorite science-fiction) has pioneered that category!
It is important to note that "conspiracy theories" are actually ONLY hypotheses (rather than theories) because they dont have well-grounded falsifiability...
Apart from political conspiracy theories there are various philosophy-oriented theories usually called "Philosophical skepticism" in order to distinguish them from the more dominant political conspiracy theories; The most popular philosophical skepticism is the dream skepticism: The eternal question if our lives were nothing but a dream that felt like reality!
Finally, conspiracy theories have an important role in science-fiction... Numerous writters have established ground basis for skeptic science-fiction; The film (triology of) "The Matrix" (my all-time favorite science-fiction) has pioneered that category!
It is important to note that "conspiracy theories" are actually ONLY hypotheses (rather than theories) because they dont have well-grounded falsifiability...
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Decieving Your Own Mind
Is ignorance a bliss? This is the second time this question is posed on this blog... The answer is not straightforward, and involves deep philosophical investigation! This entry features the same question, but from a totally different perspective...
Some people say: "What you dont know cannot harm you!"; I think this statement is false and misleading... Most of the time, what you dont know WILL hurt you, because it will lead you to uninformed decisions... But what this entry is about to address is when what you dont know ACTUALLY cannot harm you. For that condition to be satisfied, what you dont know must be completely irrelevant to your current decisions, that is to say that the difference it makes is not detectable!
Lets consider a cheating partner example: One person cheats on his partner, this partner is ignorant of that, could this ignorance hurt him? To answer such question we must consider the consequences: Roughly speaking this ignorance can hurt this partner in quite a few ways: If the partner discovers the incidence later on he might be emotionally hurt; It might lead him to optimistic decisions about the relationship, while he should have put expectations to minimum; In short the difference between reality and percieved knowledge can cause confusion!
But what if that cheating partner was so professional in his work that no emotional disconnection or contradiction of evidence entailed to such act, does this scenario seem equally unfavorable? The question is: What makes you afraid of being cheated? Is it the simple fact of being cheated? Or the knowledge of being cheated? Or the unfavorable consequences? Rationally, its the latter! Whats so bad about knowing that you were cheated if no negative experiences followed? And more importantly, what so bad about being cheated if you never knew on the condition that such lack of knowledge didnt harm you?
To elaborate more on the matter consider this case-study scenario: PersonX pays for PersonY to be their partner (assuming PersonY is a perfect pretender) and then has memory modifying operation to forget that such deal took place (ie. become ignorant of the deal)... Is PersonX a reasonable person?
The more important and fundamental question is: Is this scenario intrinsically better than the cheating partner scenario? Does it matter who made the decision to create an enjoyable fantasy? These are few radical and interesting questions to ponder!
Some people say: "What you dont know cannot harm you!"; I think this statement is false and misleading... Most of the time, what you dont know WILL hurt you, because it will lead you to uninformed decisions... But what this entry is about to address is when what you dont know ACTUALLY cannot harm you. For that condition to be satisfied, what you dont know must be completely irrelevant to your current decisions, that is to say that the difference it makes is not detectable!
Lets consider a cheating partner example: One person cheats on his partner, this partner is ignorant of that, could this ignorance hurt him? To answer such question we must consider the consequences: Roughly speaking this ignorance can hurt this partner in quite a few ways: If the partner discovers the incidence later on he might be emotionally hurt; It might lead him to optimistic decisions about the relationship, while he should have put expectations to minimum; In short the difference between reality and percieved knowledge can cause confusion!
But what if that cheating partner was so professional in his work that no emotional disconnection or contradiction of evidence entailed to such act, does this scenario seem equally unfavorable? The question is: What makes you afraid of being cheated? Is it the simple fact of being cheated? Or the knowledge of being cheated? Or the unfavorable consequences? Rationally, its the latter! Whats so bad about knowing that you were cheated if no negative experiences followed? And more importantly, what so bad about being cheated if you never knew on the condition that such lack of knowledge didnt harm you?
To elaborate more on the matter consider this case-study scenario: PersonX pays for PersonY to be their partner (assuming PersonY is a perfect pretender) and then has memory modifying operation to forget that such deal took place (ie. become ignorant of the deal)... Is PersonX a reasonable person?
The more important and fundamental question is: Is this scenario intrinsically better than the cheating partner scenario? Does it matter who made the decision to create an enjoyable fantasy? These are few radical and interesting questions to ponder!
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Property Is Unnatural
For the most part I am generally a supporter of capitalism as it seems to fit well with my other beliefs. Capitalism strives on competition, which is synonymous to darwinistic evolution; the "free market" is economical freedom; Capitalism works for greater benefit of humanity in general, and the individuals... The most notorious ideology opposing capitalism is socialism: The thing is, I dont disagree with socialism (marxism in particular) because I am starting to see that they dont really contradict - but thats beyond this entry! What i am about to say is NOT pro-socialism although it might be a good anti-capitalism argument...
The problem of capitalism is that it relies on the basic assumption of the right to property; Your right to have your own resources that no-one make take from you.... But if we take a closer look at the basic assumption capitalism exhibits we find that it is flawed: Property is unnatural! That is, i agree that no-one may take whats yours, but when was that resource assigned to you? Who gave it to you?
As far as i know, at the beginning of time the land was common, and the resources was common: No-one actually owned a land, no-one actually owned anything! The truth is, no-one owns anything, but they might control it... This control is seized by the fitter! Consider the Israeli-Palestinian dilemma: The land is not owned by anyone, but both parties are fighting to take control of the land using political influences... Another example is Microsoft, their money (or stock points) is worthless without an economical construct (capitalism that is) that gives them influence by the money they have...
PS: Inspired by this entry
PS: i am not affiliated with any political parties
The problem of capitalism is that it relies on the basic assumption of the right to property; Your right to have your own resources that no-one make take from you.... But if we take a closer look at the basic assumption capitalism exhibits we find that it is flawed: Property is unnatural! That is, i agree that no-one may take whats yours, but when was that resource assigned to you? Who gave it to you?
As far as i know, at the beginning of time the land was common, and the resources was common: No-one actually owned a land, no-one actually owned anything! The truth is, no-one owns anything, but they might control it... This control is seized by the fitter! Consider the Israeli-Palestinian dilemma: The land is not owned by anyone, but both parties are fighting to take control of the land using political influences... Another example is Microsoft, their money (or stock points) is worthless without an economical construct (capitalism that is) that gives them influence by the money they have...
PS: Inspired by this entry
PS: i am not affiliated with any political parties
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Marriage Abolishes Friendly Relationships
I believe good relationship last because of positive bonding that occurs between the parties in that relationship... In case of romantic relationships this bond is usually called "love"; For the sake of simplicity lets call it that: Love... If I ever picture a successful relationship, it would be such that each day the question is posed: "Do I love my partner?" and each time the answer comes as positive! Maybe some days were down, but somehow the answer still seemed crystal clear... Similarly, I know that my partner has been asking themselves the same question every day, and accordingly chosen to stay... That's how I'd picture it!
Holding this as basic assumption, we see that (Christian?) marriage eliminates the possibility of realizing that scenario... The reason is simple: Marriage vows. Lets take how typical Christian vows go for an example: "I __ , take thee __ , to be my (wife/husband) to have and to hold, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, and I promise my love to you - till death do us part"; If a partner asks themselves whether or not they love their partner this implies that they might not do so, which contradicts the vows... Alternatively, a partner may not ask their partner whether they love them or not, because that simple question is an accusation of treason... As we can see, a wife who asks her husband: "Do you love me?", is acknowledging the possibility that her husband may not be loving her, consequently accusing him of breaking their promises!
Another problem with marriage is that it assumes that feelings are flat highway, which may not hold true for all conditions: So acknowledging that, none of the partners knows what the other is feeling because denying love is not an option! Surely, divorce happens but that's beyond the scope of this entry because true promises are not annullable...
Part of the truth is, people don't marry to keep their love for each other, they marry to keep a family intact, which kinda makes sense; So, I think marriage is not a bond between two people, rather a family-preserving contract; A contract not to protect the rights of the couple (consenting members), but the rights of their children (the non-consenting members)...
PS: Inspired by this entry
Holding this as basic assumption, we see that (Christian?) marriage eliminates the possibility of realizing that scenario... The reason is simple: Marriage vows. Lets take how typical Christian vows go for an example: "I __ , take thee __ , to be my (wife/husband) to have and to hold, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, and I promise my love to you - till death do us part"; If a partner asks themselves whether or not they love their partner this implies that they might not do so, which contradicts the vows... Alternatively, a partner may not ask their partner whether they love them or not, because that simple question is an accusation of treason... As we can see, a wife who asks her husband: "Do you love me?", is acknowledging the possibility that her husband may not be loving her, consequently accusing him of breaking their promises!
Another problem with marriage is that it assumes that feelings are flat highway, which may not hold true for all conditions: So acknowledging that, none of the partners knows what the other is feeling because denying love is not an option! Surely, divorce happens but that's beyond the scope of this entry because true promises are not annullable...
Part of the truth is, people don't marry to keep their love for each other, they marry to keep a family intact, which kinda makes sense; So, I think marriage is not a bond between two people, rather a family-preserving contract; A contract not to protect the rights of the couple (consenting members), but the rights of their children (the non-consenting members)...
PS: Inspired by this entry
Sunday, June 11, 2006
HoboWars: Nice Web-based Game
For two weeks now, i've been taking some part of my day to enhance my "hobo" character... HoboWars is a game where you create a virtual person, train him, teach him, and let him go through few everyday life... The game is not action, its more like strategy but a slow advancing strategy, that is advancing takes time: Days actually!
Not sure if others will like this game... But its been two weeks for now, and I did like it: Try it yourself*!
PS: *The link refers to me, click here for non-refering link
Not sure if others will like this game... But its been two weeks for now, and I did like it: Try it yourself*!
PS: *The link refers to me, click here for non-refering link
Arabic: The Fucked Up Language - The Closure
As stated before this semister I was taking Arabic classes. Everything during this semister was fine, fine until 11:15 when my Arabic class starts: An hour of constant boredom, mixed with the retrospect of a teacher who finds it necessary that girls and guys each sit on seperate sides of the class... Oh, the greatness! Thats all minor stuff compared to the final result: 68/100!!
Pretty much, this is higher than what i expected in my initial post; But still it did sabotage my semi-annual average... My semi-annual average is 88.5, but Arabic is the only subject below 90... My other grades were: 98 in computer organization, 95 in circuits, and 91 in both digital logic design lab and UML...
So now, because of that fucked up class all my other good grades go to hell... FUCK ARABIC!
Pretty much, this is higher than what i expected in my initial post; But still it did sabotage my semi-annual average... My semi-annual average is 88.5, but Arabic is the only subject below 90... My other grades were: 98 in computer organization, 95 in circuits, and 91 in both digital logic design lab and UML...
So now, because of that fucked up class all my other good grades go to hell... FUCK ARABIC!
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Rehabilitating Through Blogging
It occurs to me that blogging is a great tool for interacting with people and putting one's thoughts and reasoning on the line... It gives the person diverse feedback on thier ideas, whether that feedback was approving or disapproving... Within that line of thought, I think it would help rehabilitating some offenders and help them resocialize and form positive bonding with the world around them...
The thing is, if a person was held for a long period of time with criminals and other offenders, its only reasonable to conclude that this limited interaction with an artificially selected members will intensify criminal line of thought, while on the other hand when those offenders are given a real oportunity to express their thoughts and communicate it with a more elaborate network of people, that will bring them out of their limited circle of social network, and thoughts...
Obviously, this interaction with the outside world should not compromise security, therefore some serious offenders -like terrorists, for example- would not get such benefits...
The thing is, if a person was held for a long period of time with criminals and other offenders, its only reasonable to conclude that this limited interaction with an artificially selected members will intensify criminal line of thought, while on the other hand when those offenders are given a real oportunity to express their thoughts and communicate it with a more elaborate network of people, that will bring them out of their limited circle of social network, and thoughts...
Obviously, this interaction with the outside world should not compromise security, therefore some serious offenders -like terrorists, for example- would not get such benefits...
Inconsistent Circuits Formula
Last week, while studying for my circuits exams i stumbled upon one of the least well-defined physics formula that I had to study... The formula goes like this:
This formula has caused me a lot of headaches because of the (illogical?) word: "different".... Lets consider two sinusoidal currents: I1=10sqr(2)cos(wt), I2=10sqr(2)cos(5t); So, I1eff=10, I2eff=10...
The discontinuity in the function of Ieff is very obvious! The existance of this discontinuity is very questionable, especially in the current context.. Thats unnatural! You cannot prove two physical (even mathmatical) quantities to be equal! Since we cannot prove that two quantities are equal, it makes sense that an equation that works for different values of some variables, work also for equal ones....
In short, I think that the given equation is missing: Maybe, the details were skipped for simplicity, or maybe that author himself doesnt know what the fuck he's talking... If so, this might be an interesting area to investigate!
Update: (Jan 10, 2007) This problem has been resolved. Read more here.
PS: sqr(x) is square root of x
PS: The scientific validity of claims is NOT asserted
The effective value of a current which is composed of any number of sinusoidal currents of different frequencies can be expressed as:
Ieff = SQR(I1eff2 + I2eff2 + ... + INeff2)
source: Engineering Circuit Analysis (6th Edition), by William H. Hayt / AC Circuit Power Analysis - Page 369
This formula has caused me a lot of headaches because of the (illogical?) word: "different".... Lets consider two sinusoidal currents: I1=10sqr(2)cos(wt), I2=10sqr(2)cos(5t); So, I1eff=10, I2eff=10...
Now according to the way it is calculated:
Ieff = 10sqr(2), for all |w| != 5
Ieff = 20, for all |w| == 5
In other words:
Ieff(w=5+) = Ieff(w=5-) = 10sqr(2)
while, Ieff(w=5) = 20
The discontinuity in the function of Ieff is very obvious! The existance of this discontinuity is very questionable, especially in the current context.. Thats unnatural! You cannot prove two physical (even mathmatical) quantities to be equal! Since we cannot prove that two quantities are equal, it makes sense that an equation that works for different values of some variables, work also for equal ones....
In short, I think that the given equation is missing: Maybe, the details were skipped for simplicity, or maybe that author himself doesnt know what the fuck he's talking... If so, this might be an interesting area to investigate!
Update: (Jan 10, 2007) This problem has been resolved. Read more here.
PS: sqr(x) is square root of x
PS: The scientific validity of claims is NOT asserted
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)