moth

p=2.4. The dot is a decimal point not the multiplication operator. so u=t^(2.4) and du/dt=2.4*t^(2.4-1=1.4). hope I didn't make things worse, I have the same book and found the notation difficult too.

Except where they didn't. Like the beings on Star Trek who could move so fast you could not see them, but somehow avoided making sonic shock waves, or the creatures who could eat several cubic meters of solid rock and turn it into a small puff of smoke. I admit to looking forward to the next season of the Expanse, hoping it won't be so "soapy" though. I feel like an "Elysium" or "Blade Runner" space presence is more likely, but I wouldn't mind being a beltalowda.

I feel like it goes back to the 80's when the Reaganoids started slapping "i found it" bumper stickers on their cars, and blinkers on their rationality. Scientific American even ran editorials about how dangerous this could become if allowed to fester. Cheney-Rumsfeld were flooding foggy bottom since Nixon ran the circus, and their rhetorical style has lived on through many iterations of pundits from lee atwater through roger stone today. All of it leads to faith in our glorious leader and "Dixie Chick"ing any dissenters.

Thanks for clearing that up. @wtf. Reading the Wikipedia page about equivalence classes now. In the pdf i attached, each column is an equivalence class for mod 2, 3, 6, and 5.

I think I see the difference now. 5 and 3 (and all odd numbers?) are equivalent mod 2 so the mod operator returns 'true' while the '%' operator returns the same value (1) for (any odd number) mod 2, but the '%' operator would take a few iterations to determine if two integers are in the same equivalence set?

Thanks for the link. Found some good stuff in the "see also" section too. Now I think I'm misusing the term "Mod". The '%' operator in C is the remainder from integer division, is the result of that operation the same as the mod operation ?

For any prime number n > 3, n mod 6 = 1 or 5. any prime number n > 3, n mod 3 = 1 or 2. The same prime numbers are in column 1 either way and the primes from column 2 (mod 3) are in column 5 (mod 6). Are there 2 kinds of prime numbers? Is there a name for these primes? The attached png is the primes mod 2,3,6, and 7.

Not really a documentary, sorry if it's too far off-topic. I've seen a few posters over the years who could benefit from watching these before they explain the experiment themselves. Photons Interference Of Photons

Still struggling with the .pdf. Is it a multi-worlds thing like after the atom goes through the wormhole each copy of the emission event is in a different universe?

Thanks MigL I'm reading the paper tonight. looks like it will give me some help with my questions. I read (in WIkipedia i think) that accelerating one end of a stable wormhole near c and then returning to the other end resulted in a wormhole version of the twin paradox. If you go through one way you age, if you go the other way you're younger. That is the type of wormhole I was using in my atom emits a photon example I don't think it's a CTC.

Maybe some arrangement where an excited atom emits a photon then goes through a wormhole back in time to emit the same photon over and over, or dropping an electric charge through a field and wormholing it back out to be dropped again. Like a wormhole current source.

Does that mean a properly configured wormhole can be a free energy device?

Could it be something like a black hole's event horizon making the distinction?

You never played Portal? In Portal 2 the machine gun turrets all serenade you at the end, it's great. I know there's no way to test these ideas without a wormhole to experiment with, that's why i put this in speculations. I don't think the lack of an observable worm hole should stop us from trying to build a model of how they could exist and be consistent with the rest of physics. It was the same with Black holes at one time, they were consistent with GR theory so people made models of how black holes could be consistent with physical laws.

Is it possible to violate conservation laws with wormholes (i don't think so), or would a violation mean wormholes are purely sci-fi? If you could put one end of a wormhole at the bottom of a lake and the other end on top of a nearby mountain you could generate electricity using the water flowing back down the mountain to power the wormhole generator. In the inertial drive setup, I'm assuming an object traversing a wormhole doesn't give up all it's momentum to the wormhole. If objects did lose all their momentum to the wormhole, that might restore conservation of momentum but then how can you move through a wormhole when you have zero momentum?