davidivad

while the earth does not meet the technical definition for life in my opinion, it just so happens to be an organism.... take that! Search Resultsor·gan·ism ˈôrɡəˌnizəm/ noun noun: organism; plural noun: organisms an individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form. synonyms: living thing, being, creature, animal, plant, life form "fish and other organisms" the material structure of an individual life form. "the heart's contribution to the maintenance of the human organism" a whole with interdependent parts, likened to a living being. "the upper strata of the American social organism" synonyms: structure, system, organization, entity "a complex political organism"

i think he realizes certain differences in the two and is doing a brake check... lol i personally like python due to my familiarity with it and the fact that you can apply it elsewhere without having to pick up yet another language.

go with ruby

yup studiot is pretty cool. i thought he was a woman for the longest time because of his avatar.

c++ is the way to go sometimes. i usually try things out first and then reimpliment it in the best chioce if i like it.

what do you want to use it for? i prefer python just because of the origination of its name... good old slapstick humor is where it is at... and you will need that humor for some things.

hey... what if jesus was actually an astronaut?

1

i feel no reason to discredit your concept of the earth being alive as it makes a great metaphor. however, for me, the earth is the place where life we know it has formed.

my appologies. i just felt a bit of humor. please carry on.

just to toss in my two cents... the earth itself has not given rise to another structure similar to its own yet not to say that we will not make it. the earth itself does not meet the full definition of lifeform. it does however have complex energy structure that pools up resources to make life possible. did the earth assemble itself? yes does it make more planets? no not yet. was the earth created by another living organism? no the earth is a seed planet. it has potential to create life and support it. are we part of a larger structure of life? yes, we have an ecosystem on earth that has taken advantage of the earths energy stores. if all life simply transported spock style to another planet it would be dead and the other planet might be considered alive. all life that we know of runs on dna. the earth does not run on dna although dna can take advantage of its resources.

two men can do the work of three. this should be accounted for... lol

the point i was making for the young lady is to try experimenting herself. the idea behind making an experiment is isolating things out and removing them until you get an answer. to tell her she shouldnt try is to tell her that she should not consider experimenting and instead concoct an idea with no real foundation. we dont need another one of them... i would also lke to mention that mass does not interact well. when two nucleuses touch sparks fly and you have by products. this means that charges are involved and mediate any and all interactions below a certain point. beyond that point the strong force takes over and BANG! at the classic scale things seem solid because of this very force responsible for the charges. remove the charges and the materials will pass right through each other. this is how i know it for sure. however you are better off using basic physics to describe objects at the classic scale. in other words all structure and interactions between them is mediated directly by charges.

interestingly enough, we now have the question of whether conditions apply. i suggest a gandy experiment... (thought experiment) i would first consider eliminating your forces that are possible. make a list of all the forces involved make both surfaces as smooth as possible. start with as simple of an experiment as possible trying to exclude each force involved such as deciding to use material that has no charge build up. you will be left with only one or two basic things that are directly affecting your measurement. if you want to see how it works, then you have to take it apart into its most basic pieces. many think that ideas are created and become stagnated stumps in the process of having that ultimate answer. the answer will always be in front of your face. experiment wirth it.

please compare your work along side of traditional methods. i would also like to see why you need it ( what makes it useful). sometimes it is all about presentation...

for me the truth is the human condition.

thats a long time to be doing someone elses bookkeeping... must be pretty important. remember that the client is always right.

what, are you a computer or something? "good lord, wheres the front end to this thing?" maybe python will work...

they asked him if he was the the son of god and he said he was just a man.

we are all forgotton so quickly... yea, they nailed that dude.

time is yet another dimension along with length and width starting at the planck scale. so, time is a real measureable aspect. mathematically, you can present space without the dimension of time. this means everything has to be stripped of all those time frames and placed in one frame wich represents the basic unit of time. what do you get? "frozen time"... clearly we require that we have more room to move in than the plank length for time to "move" so this is only a verry useful exercise in math. in other words, time moves on reguardless of how you choose to view it. interestingly enough, massless particles have the advantage of being able to share a position. i think the best way to think of things is that the vacuum of space contains all virtual possibilities that can be had. particles are nothing more than interactions in and of themselves. they are merely events. to say that all probable outcomes of an event exist in another universe detracts from the idea that space is simply full of nothing which is representative of everything in existence. how about them apples... question: can pigs fly in another universe? answer: if all conditions are met in this one.... all that from bubbles in a bottle of shampoo?

mike, what i find even more interesting is that vortexes are very much the quantum way of things. without this property, we would not have superconductivity and the likes.

At the most basic level, the field at each point in space is a simple harmonic oscillator, and its quantization places a quantum harmonic oscillator at each point. Excitations of the field correspond to the elementary particles of particle physics. However, even the vacuum has a vastly complex structure, so all calculations of quantum field theory must be made in relation to this model of the vacuum. The vacuum has, implicitly, all of the properties that a particle may have: spin, or polarization in the case of light, energy, and so on. On average, most of these properties cancel out: the vacuum is, after all, "empty" in this sense. One important exception is the vacuum energy or the vacuum expectation value of the energy. The quantization of a simple harmonic oscillator states that the lowest possible energy or zero-point energy that such an oscillator may have is start here. this is easy to prove out whether right or wrong.

i would like to see a wave function used somewhere here. this is the best way to percieve a particle as it does not exist a a solid object but a probability. there needs to be a time variable in your equation somewhere. i see that you are using reflective lighting math to describe particle interactions which can be useful as you need wvefunctions instead of angular descriptions. always remember that water is not water until it is disturbed. to start this race... we need to be able to accurately describe subtleties of a perfect vacuum first. this is the first step and is the stage upon which all your math will be built. the next step is to describe the simplest multibody system you can. once you have done this for hydrogen, things have a funny way of falling into place because you can build more complex math with basic functions. you clearly recognise the importance of the wavefunction in such a problem as you are trying to figure it out with light. one browny point for you...

you should be able to create a new channel to show the rotational value of your frequency and add the same properties if needed. heck, there may be a filter.C will be a constant and is removable to get your theoretical wave.. just remember to look fo the nonsensical number.