pzkpfw

So this whole thread is really about your frustration that nobody is taking seriously your claims about what you think you are seeing in the sky? (re: your previous threads http://www.scienceforums.net/user/107113-jeremyjr/?tab=topics).

How about using the LHC for that once it's obsolete? I figure (not very seriously), fill it with water. Use turbines to get the water moving around the ring. Let the water drive the turbines to get the energy back out. i.e. the water is the flywheel. There'd be plenty of friction, but it'd be simple.

That's very much not what current science thinks. (i.e. no single point of origin, in pre-existing space.)

Cool, a motorcycle analogy. Imagine you are zooming along a straight piece of road, say, heading due North. You come to a corner, turning sharp to the left (West). Oh no- there's ice. You can't turn. Which way will you go? You'll go straight ahead, not West, not East, but North. If there was instead no ice, and your tyres were able to make your bike turn to the West - yes, you do seem to feel a force. But that's just the "desire" of your body to continue going the way it was. North. To make your body instead go to the West, your bike is exerting a force on you, towards the West - inwards, relative to the circle of your turning path. There's no force East, or, outwards relative to the circle of your turning path (yes, other than your body resisting the turn, and wanting to go straight ahead)

Thanks for that. I usually use I.E. and have been resorting to spinning up Firefox when I needed to paste etc. Certainly better (easier, faster, ...) to know the built-in function.

Your issue is that you think "apply modification function" will be the same for all observers. That's the equivalent of demanding absolutes, like absolute time and absolute distance. What relativity showed us, is that the speed of light is absolute, so things like time and distance are not, and simultaneity isn't either. So the cute pseudo code is cute, but in itself proves nothing. (To get your conclusion you must accept your assumption. Circular.)

Where's the barycenter in that scenario?

Does Brontosaurus live on Pluto?

4. Which is one less than the number of posts you made in this thread since writing "I won't post anymore".

There's a difference between "self taught" and "untaught, and making stuff up". I'd suggest starting by learning what current science thinks, and why, and go from there.

Yeah, I figured as much by noting your previous thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78958-does-this-hold-true-for-all-prime-products/#entry769264 Again, what's the largest value you've tested against?

Isn't the point of RSA, not that it can't be done, but that with big enough p and q it'll just take too long to be feasible? What's the largest value you've tested against?

The momentum isn't conserved, because of that friction. The energy of the spinning gets changed into heat and sound.

Do you think dark matter is some kind of fixed background on which the rest of space sits?

So was post #1 a question or a statement?

Lexx, episode 1.3 explains it all.

Earthquakes are caused by overuse of bold text in forum posts. It causes an imbalance.

Well, er, yeah, 8 bit bytes is pretty much by definition. What I was referring to is that the thing being addressed (by a given op code, in a given addressing mode) might not be bytes, it might be words, of whatever word size the particular CPU uses. And adding to his confusion over signed offsets with wrap around makes it simpler? As Sensei belaboured, it'd seldom work the way you described.

( Assuming an addressing mode where the offset has the same magnitude as the the base address. Not always the case. )

Imagine a bit of machine code that needs to jump to a different address. The equivalent of "if x = y then go to subroutine five". If the address offset jumped to could only be positive, you'd have a program that could only go forward. You'd never be able to do loops and such. (Unless you used all absolute addresses and "hard coded" the destination of jumps backwards). The Z80, for example had a relative jump that allowed an 8 bit (1 byte) address offset. That amounted to a jump of 128 bytes forwards or 127 backwards; not just 256 bytes forwards. (Note that the Z80 had a 16 bit address bus, so 8 bit offsets did not cover the full address range, from any given location). Sorry, but you tend to be very sloppy with terminology. (Not that I'm claiming infallibility). It's not 2^16 bits, it's 16 bits. (In this example). That doesn't "store" 65536 addresses, a 16 bit value can hold a number (assuming simple unsigned integer, e.g. not BCD or something) from 0 to 2^16 - 1, or 0 to 65535. That might be used to point to an address, i.e. 65536 different locations. What's at those locations might or might not be a byte - it depends on the CPU architecture. For relative or offset addressing, we need to be able to look forwards or backwards from a given location, so as a signed value, those 16 bits allows a range approximately + or - 32767. Essentially (approx) half of the 65536 forwards, half of it backwards.

So again, the lack of evidence is somehow evidence.

Wouldn't you be better off directly harnessing the water? (As is already done).

People have had hearts replaced by machines; not just having machines pump their blood temporarily during an operation, but permanent replacement. It's still a new science, and the success has been varied. But still, it would have been very obvious very quickly if the ability of the recipient to think had changed significantly. And what about heart transplants? Has any recipient of another persons heart woken up from surgery and asked "what am I doing in this body?"? This stuff is garbage.

Strange is right, that there isn't enough information there; but since I can see what you're trying to do with that, I'll just go ahead and (simplify, and) say "no". The thing is, if you're going to reject the shell theorem because it's an approximation, you can't just substitute that with another approximation. If you're going to insist on ignoring the shell theorem, you need to do something like actually calculate the effects of the individual stars outside the orbit of S2, not just talk your way into a claim that supports your idea. Go ahead.

It's true the setup isn't very clear about whether the train is still accelerating or not at the time the flashes occur, but that's not really what I was commenting about in your post. You just seemed to be implying an observer outside the train as having a "special" or "absolute" rest frame. Since they were at rest with the train and clocks at the start, I can see that's why you'd see them as "having" the frame within which the clocks are "still synchronised" (and I can't say I disagree (so my post #14 may be backward)); but that wasn't clear in your post.