Ghideon

Personally I find this topic kind of interesting and I've trying various angles in my earlier posts. Fact is that so far i have not been able to see any answers. In my opinion yu are ignoring my attempts to discuss. I'm starting to repeat myself. Since the topic is moved to speculations I ask again and try to clarify: Is that the current laws that there are evidence for? Can you maybe explain, in detail, what a pixel is, what properties you think it has? What tests do you suggest to show that these pixels explains everything we have evidence so far? In my opinion think you have suggested new scientific progress once your theory is adopted. Is that progress based on a new understanding on currently known and testad laws of physics, or will your theory reveal new laws? Or maybe a combination? I also whould like to know how to test the theory. Let's say I have an idea that states: "Each pixie controlls all the laws of the universe". What test will show I'm wrong and you are correct? I do not agree at all. Fact: there are a lot of useful models and theories for many parts of the nature that surrounds us. My opinion is that there are loads of interesting discoveries yet to be made, far more than just a few more things.

I do not agree that pixels are simple. A pixel is indeed the smallest controllable element of a picture represented on a screen. But the pixel is the result of a rather complex set of underlaying technology and very different on a CRT or LCD screen. That is far more complex than the pixel on an LCD screen. Can you explain what a pixel is within your theory and how the pixel behaves? Why is a pixel a good analogy? Maybe OK in a very limited context, but I fail to see the connection to your theory. I want to get to the point where we look at a scientific experiment, agree and state "That is a pixel!" That point may be far into the future but at least try to guide my reasoning in the right direction.

Probably, the fee may differ depending on country of residence: https://ijisrt.com/processing-charges

Could we test the idea in the following way? 1: the proposed idea will have profound impact of humanity: 2: Combining 1 and 2: What if I go to two classes tomorrow. In the first class I teach the students that the universe is composed of pixels. In the second class I teach the students that the universe is composed of hexagons*. Ideally I would like to have some scientific evidence but, as a start, can you explain why the students in the first class will have a chance on a very different future than the ones in the second class? *) or cubes or whatever, just not something mistaken for pixels.

I only have basic knowledge about relativity but thought it could be worth the time to check this out. The first part of the chapter INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND states: (bold by me to highlight) Maybe just a minor thing but not a promising start. And it is then contradicted by the paper's first reference: Unfortunately it does not look like this revision of the paper is worth spending time on. How was the paper reviewed?

I think I agree on that but not much else in the post. I think I know in detail what a pixel is in the context of digital imaging but I do not get this: Is that the current laws that there are evidence for? Can you maybe explain, in detail, what a pixel is, what properties you think it has? What tests do you suggest to show that these pixels explains everything we have evidence so far? Good, then it must be something that is both simple and straightforward to explain and to understand.

Thanks for the feedback Quiet! That is OK with me. Just remember to PM me when the novel is released, I'll try to get hold of a copy

Cool! I’ll add some new ideas and try to stay within the requirements First, some “facts”. These statements are part of a possibly long list, intended to be very short pop-sci/layman versions of mainstream science. In the story these “facts” are part of what the general public believes to be “true”. The statements does not necessarily apply to theories the corporations have available. They also may not be known at all times in the story, especially not at 1867. 1: Nothing can travel faster than speed of light in vacuum 2: Anti-gravity is not possible. 3: Some problems that are really hard to solve would be easy to solve with a quantum computer. Now some discussion. I’m trying to address the topic from the point of view of the individuals in the story, not from what is scientific in real world. For the general public, scientific theories works in two ways: 1: It looks like any scientific progress means a more complex and counter intuitive-theory replaces and extends the old one. Examples: Newton --> einstein -> … ? Bohr atom model ->“quantum stuff” -> … ? 2: It looks like the theories limits what is possible. Even if a new theory should make it possible to incorporate gravity in the standard model of particles it likely does not allow for FLT or anti gravity. The speed of light as a limit from Einstein’s model still applies. No let’s try to combine 1,2 and 3 into the story. Again, this is an attempt to make it look logical in the context of the story and has little to do with “real” science. The corporations discover is that behind the more and more complex models of the nature there seems to be something strange and unexpected lurking. Some problems that are extremely hard to solve using “traditional” math and theories are easy once a some really hard obstacle is passed. Example: It looks extremely hard to build a quantum computer compared to a pocket calculator, but once done the quantum computer solves “impossibly hard” problems. The corporations discover that a similar analogy applies to other areas; once math is advanced past a certain point, quantum mechanics, relativity etc just logically follows and are treated intuitively with ease. Corporations also discover that “traditional limits” such as speed of light, can be broken under some circumstances. The corporations now starts a program to keep this discovery for themself. Any publicly released result is always new evidence that the old limits apply and/or that “new progress” means “more complex” and “harder”. They keep track of the very few individuals or groups that may be able to break “through the barrier” outside of the corporations. Normally they do not have to sneak around and use violent methods, instead they reason like: -“Those guys at university XYZ are heading in a dangerous direction, they might actually be able to figure out the possibility of anti gravity.” -“That’s not good, we better keep them occupied with the general gravity version. How about helping with founding a really large particle accelerator? It will take them a good 2-3 decades just to confirm the damn Higgs Boson.” -“Good point, by that time we should have made some real progress on the wormhole theory.”

The linked essay seems to talk alot about beeing rational and scientific. It also also states that tired light theory* is correct. I failed to find mainstream scientific evidence that supports tired light but lots of evidence stating that the tired light theory is incorrect. I think the essay contradicts itself; I do not think it is rational or scientific to give credit to a theory that goes against observations and scientific evidence. *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

Thanks! I'll go through the details, it may take a while. I think I'll post any follow-ups in a new topic, where homework help rules don't apply. ( This is probably the first time I respond in a homework section only to get a homework myself, nice )

Interesting topic, I'll try to add some thoughts and ideas*. 1: Intuitive vs counter-intuitive. It sounds like the corporations have access to physics that is easier to use that allows them to make quicker progress. Does that imply a very large scale and continuous cover-up or conspiracy? Corporations must stop universities or other "non-corporative" partes from discovering the intuitive physics. The corporations in the plot have advantage by controlling a immaterial asset, any leak of knowledge must be tracked down to stop further spread of the information. The knowledge of the intuitive physics seems easy to copy and reproduce. In other plots I've seen there's often one side, such as a corporation or villain, in control of an asset that is hard to reproduce or spread. Example: advanced weapon, fuel, nutrition etc. 2: What happens if the plot is approached from another angle by turning intuitive vs counter-intuitive around and combining that with the comment from @Strange? Something like: Corporations discover that there are strange and unknown "counter-intuitive" aspects of nature such as relativity and quantum mechanics. To hide possible progress from the public the corporations start a program intended to strengthen the belief that physics is simple, intuitive and "almost complete". Newtons mechanics etc is good enough for many aspects of daily life and equipment such as LHC and other advanced stuff can be kept out of reach. False results are released, such as "LHC crew fails again to find evidence of ...". The connection I try to make is that I guess quite a few potential readers are not scientists. If the "average reader" find relativity kind of counter-intuitive, and the general public in the book has access only to intuitive but limited part of the "corporate physics", does that help the story to appear more plausible? *) Disclaimer, I've not checked why 1867 may be important and that may render some or all of the notes invalid. Also, I'm writing in the context of a possible plot where scientific correctness is not super important.

Thanks! I did not see that possibility and therefore I should have worded my question clearer. I wanted to make sure that this was not a trick question where all pulleys are attached to some rigid frame and none of them are allowed to move relative to the others. +1 for showing me condition and the math. Maybe OT but I'm curious: without giving away too much information to the OP, did you find the condition by calculating or by experience / intuition? It's been a long time since I solved these kind of problems so I feel rusty, to say the least. Verifying the condition will be a good exercise for me.

Question: Do you genuinely beleive that the device is a machine capable of time travel? In that case @Strange response is as good as it gets. Or, are you trying to recreate something just looks like the device in the pictures? For instance to be used as a prop in a movie or similar? I might be able to give some input but not from a scientific point of view.

Good point! But could the answer also be 26? Extract all odd numbers from circles connected via diagonal lines: (389)-->(3+9), (492)-->(9), (841)-->(1), (613)-->(1+3) Sum: (3+9)+(9)+(1)+(1+3)=26 Why not use all odd numbers from both diagonals?

As studiot said; Sometimes it helps to draw an alternative picture of the problem and an approximation may be good enough. As a hint I tried an alternative below. The first image is a zoomed in version of the left part of the setup in the OP, intended to act as comparison for the second image. The second image is an approximation of the first one. The layout is different but the impact on the rest of the system, not displayed, is intended to be similar. Does this help to show that the system is not at equilibrium? And then apply studiot's comments?

Hi Shahroze. I'll try to give some guidance; What numerical value of the gravitational constant g is used in the calculation? I suppose the lower left pulley connected to [math]m_{1}[/math] can be moved up and down and the upper right pulley is stationary, correct?

I'll try an analogy as a complement to "swimming upstream": I think one could imagine it as an ant that walks along a rubber band while someone slowly stretches the rubber band. Now lets start with several ants equally spaced along the rubber band. The ants represent photons leaving the surface of last scattering and one end of the rubber band is us on earth. All ants start walking, so there will be that ants arriving one at a time. They started from a distance further away as time passes and they have to walk a longer and longer distance to get to the end. The analogy I'm trying to make is that the ants/photons don't start at the same point on the rubber band but they start at the same time. The sphere @Strange describes grows because the photons that started inside the sphere has already arrived here, and photons arriving in the future started from a greater distance. (Getting late here, not sure if I make any sense...)

I'm trying to figure out the image you have in mind Rolando, to allow me to contribute: Moved a negligible distance relative to what? As strange said, the sphere where the light originated is centered on us.

Thanks @Strange for supplying follow up questions I had in mind! And in addition to those questions I like to add: I think you need to specify "dying" in more detail, the processs in a supernova is different from a star that becomes* a red giant. What properties are you suggesting that the "The DB elements" have? *) Not scientifically stringent description but good enough to move discussion forward.

Hi The DB Element! I fail to understand the idea, can you please explain? For instance, I think the vast majority of stars are located in galaxies, and galaxies does not seem to expand. Per your idea, how does the "DB" cause expansion of universe without expanding the galaxies? (Note: I think this is more of a speculative topic than educational)

Why do you post the account no and other info on a public internet forum?

Nice! I have not seen/tried that IRL but it would have made some of my interactions much easier. In the case I described above the initial paper based process to get the digital ID is done once, at one bank. The digital ID is standardized and valid in most banks, government agencies etc. I guess it may vary from nation to nation where local law or implementations differ. In the context of the post from NTUUN, all banks offices around here that wants to be a digital ID issuer needs to handle the paper based process and store original papers.

Personally I prefer this one over your second example That said, I've had a few cases where the signup for the online service required a personal visit and signing a load of papers. Example is when the bank requires proof of identity of the parent to be able produce a digital id for a kid. In a bank? To be able to communicate? Why would a bank not be connected to internet? "they"=the bank? One reason is that internet allows for cost effective digital communication betwen financial institutes and allows customers to interact digitally with the bank.

Yes.

Yes banks* use paper. Not all processes are yet 100% digital. For instance local law and/or customer preferences may require certain processes to use paper based forms. A more specific question may allow for a better answer, I've some experience in this area. *) bank in this context=a financial institution. There are other types of banks...