Mentor Requested

originally posted by: ExternalForces
a reply to: Phantom423

Also, it's presumed best to begin with the Scholar courses?

It really depends on your background. If you've already completed an undergraduate degree in a hard science, you probably don't need these detailed courses. The Scholar courses are designed for people who don't have a solid background in subjects like mathematics, basic physics and chemistry. If your main interest is physics, then you need a good handle on the math - calculus, trig, linear algebra.

Review the syllabus of courses you may be interested in - then just watch a few classes. You shouldn't have much problem finding the level where you belong. Also, you don't have to take every single course in a particular area like math - if you need a review or just need to learn vectors for instance, you can target those areas without spending a lot of time on things you don't need. It's really up to you to decide what you need or don't need.

The Scholar courses are relatively new and are targeted at a larger audience so the language and terminology is basic.

Here's a link to an open study group - you can ask questions, find other learners who have similar interests and situations.
openstudy.com...

a reply to: Phantom423

Never realized full potential until recently due to the background information. Which, in speaking of, do we need to go into full detail on this thread? Probably not.

a reply to: ExternalForces

No - not necessary. I'm sure you'll be able to access all the necessary information. You can always PM me if you have a specific question.

a reply to: ExternalForces

Just a quick summery of collected info on the universe that will draw much criticism but here goes, The universe's expansion is increasing so there was no big bang.rivers of Sub atomic particles are speeding in many times the speed of light and forming atoms briefly ,then the atoms are breaking apart and the pieces are flying off again only to repeat this proses all over again. In layman's terms we and everything around us is not solid but being propagated or projected much like a 3d tel-vision.All laws of mater are just illusions that we the observer are to feel and see as real ...but in fact are being destroyed and rebuilt so fast they cant measure the frequency.I do believe the source is from the creator.

a reply to: supergravity

The Big Bang equation itself gives way that the universe is forever expanding! Here's a link !

Big Bang

Also, there's a great documentary available on Netflix regarding the subject! It's called "Cosmos: A Space Time Oddesy."

Also, this link gives way to another theory if the big bang doesn't fit your opinions of the cosmos!

Also, what makes you think there are only 3 Dimensions?

a reply to: ExternalForces

I never said there were only 3 dimensions, I said the world around us is being projected like 3d tv, just a simplified example. Thanks for link info , will check it out. The info I have read states they dont understand where the ADDED energy is coming from to advance the expansion.Explosions DO NOT speed up but slow there expansion as time goes by.

As for rebut for all the naysayers.....

The current theory of Big Bang is riddled with inconsistencies, like a slice of fromage. Certain academia have a tendency to lead and tow the line on what's accepted facts. I'm sorry, but if a single equation is contradictory in a theory, it is impotent and infertile. There exists a menagerie of blanch and insufficient data based simply on the overwhelming presence of unknown variables. Fingerings leaks and voodoo mathematics to conjure the illusion of consistency, to lend credence to territorial literature, is as abhorrent and cult-ish as institutional religion. This is another "magnetic molten iron core" debacle. Even Tesla and Einstein had the courage to admit, contemporary science is largely alternative science, in attempt to confuse, misdirect, and obfuscate for more sinister purposes.

/pulpitoff

Maybe I was being too cryptic when I pointed to the photon. I might have been presumptuous in translation to the OP's pursuit in MB. I assumed the insight and research of DNA could have been the heart of matter. Hence, my suggestion to sniff out the relationship between the pair. Western science is finally catching up to and embracing the fact that light frequency can carry and imprint biological data such as DNA. And I believe, if you want to get to the core of life, writing and/or editing the script of the program is an essential key. Decoding the photon's properties pertaining to life will be an earth shattering revelation.

Thankfully, scientific disclosure is finally reaching critical mass. I estimate within the next 2 years, a few detrimental major discoveries/confessions (zero point energy and friction-less /non-linear travel) will open the floodgates, in turn, flipping contemporary Western science on its head, compelling reconstitution in whole.


**PS (to the OP): a king's share of the naysaying tributaries poaching this thread, are scornful for accruing lavish debt from ivy league brainwashing, reflecting in their aggressive challenge. You can't blame them for defending their personal integrity.

a reply to: trifecta

I was just admitting I've done the research for big bang theory and my mind doesn't come to an absolute choice in believing it. It perhaps derives more questions, and not answers.

originally posted by: supergravity
a reply to: ExternalForces

I never said there were only 3 dimensions, I said the world around us is being projected like 3d tv, just a simplified example. Thanks for link info , will check it out. The info I have read states they dont understand where the ADDED energy is coming from to advance the expansion.Explosions DO NOT speed up but slow there expansion as time goes by.

Without fundamental evidence on where this energy is coming from why was it made a theory in the first place. Aren't all theories bound to the laws of science to begin with? Which should suggest that ALL variables need a known outcome IF the other variables data is known. Yes? Which would result in this theory being a flaw itself. Probably intentional, but discussed in a different forum.

You misjudge me, I'm not here to fight.

a reply to: ExternalForces

I said thanks for info, since when were those fighting words?Ok lets leave the non big bang for another thread, What is the subject that you wish to talk about? How about energy itself.
Here is my latest project , A solar powered truck that generates its own FREE energy.I put 1.1kw of panel power on a 1998 electric ford ranger and have now went 1000 miles FOR FREE, no charging ,no fuel.NO MONEY
Explain to me why the most advanced minds in our countries have not pressed industry to do what little ole me has done with less than 8,000 dollars.Thats truck and panels....Driving for free.

a reply to: supergravity

Nice rack! I've always liked the looks of the Kargo Master.

What kind of range do you have with this setup? I've read The Ford Ranger conversion in "Build Your Own Electric Vehicle" uses 0.44 kWh/mile. I'd say it's pretty typical.

If your panels supply 1100W that should be enough to average about 2 mph, accounting for charging time. Is that about right?

a reply to: supergravity

Dudeee, nice truck. If you're only going 2mph though, you should just walk!! Hahahaha

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

HA, 2 mph you got to be joking , I knew I would get some hecklers but you dont have a clue.
my truck has similar horse power as the gas engine and would do over 100 M.P.H if it did not have a governor at 75 m.p.h. I haul my boat to the river and when I am done fishing it is charged back up.It has a 100 horse THREE PHASE INDUSTRIAL BRUSH LESS MOTOR, and it will set you back in the seat. But thanks for all the support ....not.

a reply to: ExternalForces

yea, dude you wish you had one when the middle east melts down and gas goes to $20 a gallon and then I will laugh all the way to the bank.This truck was produced by ford on the west coast and is not a conversion job.

a reply to: supergravity

Text
HA, 2 mph you got to be joking , I knew I would get some hecklers but you dont have a clue

I said average, accounting for charging time.

TextI haul my boat to the river and when I am done fishing it is charged back up.

You must live close to the river then. A few hours charge won't take you far using 1100 watt PV system.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

My lithium ion batts fully charged gives me 40 miles, on a sunny that is extended by the panel power and i could add batteries for long distance . I use it for local driving . I never said it was a panacea , I will say if i lived down town in my small town i would never buy gas again.This is just an experiment that is working out very well. The tesla cars get 250 miles per charge, If one put flexible panels into the body you would have a direct replacement for you gas guzzler ,even for long distance.

a reply to: supergravity

My lithium ion batts fully charged gives me 40 miles

What charging source?

on a sunny that is extended by the panel power

Extended by how much? Your 1100 watt system can only supply enough juice to go about 2-3 miles 'per hour of charge' under optimal conditions.

Don't get me wrong, I like the truck. I would consider something like this for myself in the future, however I would leave the gimmicky PV panels at home. They don't add much to the range.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

The only source for the last 1000 miles is the solar array on top, I estimate Getting 2600 - 2900 miles per year. Winter average is lower than ideal summer sun and temp as batteries dont like cold.yes I would have preferred to use flexable panels to the shape of the body and bed cover but they produce less energy,cost more, dont last as long.