Ghideon

This is your speculative thread; you need to show why there is an implementation and a requirement for a computer. (Had this been raised as a question instead as part of a speculative claim I could present valid alternatives)

Then please do so, using established theories. Note: adding new speculations does not support a falsified idea. Now you have moved the problem; if your variant of tired light requires a new periodic system I think you need to establish the new periodic system first.

Maybe not intended but I see this as yet an analogy for entanglement. Assume a couple is married and then separated by some (great) distance. When one (random) individual of the married couple dies we immediately know that the other party has become a widower or a widow. The immediate change from wife to widow (or husband to widower) does not need a signal.

Ok. As a consequence of your idea fusion of nuclei should result in a great reduction of mass. Please provide an explanation why this is not observed. (Hint: Read @swansont's post above and think of it in microscopic terms if that helps. The output from the sun is the sum of reactions on particle level. Mass differences between nuclei can be observed on microscopic levels and the result scaled up, applying established models/mathematics to stellar proportions.)

The food smells of Occam's razor.

Does the light, per your idea, originate from stars? For instance the light we see from the moon originates from the sun. I need to know where you think the vast majority of the light comes from to further comment on your idea.

What computation? What makes you think there is a computation?

Yes. The limited quality adds artefacts to the video. Above is a circle added as reference to a still image from the video you posted.

You missed the important part: How is your idea falsified? Please describe an observation and an outcome that would show your idea to be wrong.

How is your idea falsified*? Please describe an observation and an outcome that would show your idea to be wrong. *) The idea is obviously already falsified; just check answers above. I'm interested in OP's view on the matter.

Why did you tell me in writing instead of showing me? Ok. I don't think I need telepathic skills to see that you misunderstood the video.

Instantaneous telepathic contact does not, and cannot, exist according to established theories of relativity. Relativity of time makes sense, instantaneous telepathic contact does not*. What you describe is not relativity, at least not a prediction of any established scientific theory about relativity ( for instance Special Relativity). *) In science that is. In science fiction my opinion may be different.

Is this a response in the context of my post above? (I suspect you have misunderstood what encoding is)

The explanation is in clear text in your screen shot. Below it is highlighted for you. So the links does not work; I do not know if they goes to a page displaying anything meaningful. (Note: I have pointed out this several times in the past) Note 2:Some links may give other errors such as this.

Source: [math]\begin{displaymath} T=\sum_{ \mathclap{\substack{i_1,\ldots,i_n=1 \\ j_1,\ldots,j_m=1}}}^d T_{j_1,\ldots,j_m}^{i_1,\ldots,i_n} E_{i_1,\ldots,i_n}^{j_1,\ldots,j_m} \end{displaymath}[/math] [math]\begin{displaymath} T=\sum_{ i_1,\ldots,i_n,j_1,\ldots,j_m=1}^d \; T_{j_1,\ldots,j_m}^{i_1,\ldots,i_n} E_{i_1,\ldots,i_n}^{j_1,\ldots,j_m} \end{displaymath[/math] Source: \begin{displaymath} T=\sum_{ i_1,\ldots,i_n,j_1,\ldots,j_m=1}^d \; T_{j_1,\ldots,j_m}^{i_1,\ldots,i_n} E_{i_1,\ldots,i_n}^{j_1,\ldots,j_m} \end{displaymath} Test result: [math]\begin{displaymath} T=\sum_{ i_1,\ldots,i_n,j_1,\ldots,j_m=1}^d \; T_{j_1,\ldots,j_m}^{i_1,\ldots,i_n} E_{i_1,\ldots,i_n}^{j_1,\ldots,j_m} \end{displaymath}[/math] Expected result: (I got curious about @joigus test... wanted to learn)

That seems a very counter intuitive claim from an information perspective. In addition to other arguments here is an example (based on John Cuthbert's comment) Origo in a three dimensional coordinate system is one point identified by 0,0,0 0,0,0 can be represented as a ascii string in binary form, note that this is one number: 0011000000101100001100000010110000110000. Convert the one binary number to decimal, obviously resulting in one number: 206899784752. One number, several numbers or other information is a matter of choosing a suitable encoding. Hope this helps.

That is a reasonable conclusion when a conjecture, an idea or similar is a failure. (Note, you are probably wasting time posting the links, all of them have errors or needs additional efforts.)

As expected your methods and ideas unfortunately failed the challenge. The ideas does not work at all, but it is good that you tested so that you see it for yourself. That is good, those acknowledgements may be the first step. Maybe you begin to see where the real issue is? Yes, as part of my profession I need to know several different programs, frameworks and programming languages. But the software is not relevant to your issues, do you begin to see why? If you objectively analyse your issues and struggling and its connection to how RSA and similar encryption actually work I think the root cause of your problems will be obvious. I have already tried to explain (several times) but you may learn more from discovering it for yourself. Sorry, I'm not interested in yet another repetition in those numbers. I have no clue what that is supposed to mean. (Note: 256485531 is not a prime number and also not a semi prime)

Your knowledge seems correct @joigus. (Italics by me) Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_electricity#Cosmic_radiation

Can you clarify that sentence? I do not see a connection to pervious posts in the thread.

No. You are mixing things up. You have linked to work from Benedikt Bitterli that works with graphics research on new algorithms and representations of geometry and appearance at Nvidia. https://benedikt-bitterli.me/femto.html. It is completely virtual* as far as I can tell, no physical femto cameras are used. No support of aether will be found there. *) And also quite interesting if ray tracing, algorithms and physically based rendering is your thing.

If the "wow-signal" is the best they came up with having such formidable powers then I'm very unimpressed. I'll wait for something more intelligent to be communicated before investing more time in their signals.

They are not mistreated, at least not around where I'm located, they just fell out of fashion together with for instance phlogistonism.

How? The intensity, as far as I know, is due to the construction of the measurement equipment, not properties of the source of the signal.

Maybe it is a good thing that you begin to find out for our self that your ideas regarding factorisation of semiprimes does not work?