Ghideon

I think you have misinterpreted the representation of the signal's intensity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2010/05/28/126510251/aliens-found-in-ohio-the-wow-signal

I see no question @trevorjohnson32. What is it you wish to discuss? (The post does not look like na attempt at describing established physics, maybe it's part of a work of fiction?)

You could try to have matching parentheses? There seems to be unbalanced "(" and ")" in the statement:

Thanks for the answer. (Bold by me). As far as I can tell experimental observation of non-locality is not part of the motivation of the prize*, I do not understand the question, sorry. I do not see the reference I asked for so I assume it's your personal interpretations. *) Also, it is not part of the scientific background I linked to.

I can't find support for that in official statements*; can you provide a link? Or is it your interpretation of the experimental results? (The short official reason* is: "for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science") *) From the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, responsible for selecting the Nobel Prize laureates in physics, example https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2022/10/advanced-physicsprize2022.pdf

There may be two parts; emitter and receiver, placed close together. An IR emitter keeps transmitting infrared light and when any object comes near, it is detected by the receiver by monitoring the reflected light from the object. If you are far from the sensor the emitted IR light reflected from you will not be registered by the receiver. By blocking the sensor there is no path for the emitted IR light to reach the receiver; the IR light will not be reflected to the receiver. Below is a picture, note the emitter and receiver: IR LED and photo diode. (Source: links to https://www.instructables.com/Easy-Infrared-Proximity-Sensor/ The page describes the principle in more detail) You can google for "ir proximity sensor".

The second equation is not a valid mathematical expression.

ICANN Lookup of www.scienceforums.net says (amongst other things) My guess: Given the expiration date for next year and a few days of global unavailability the registration expired 2022-10-16 and was renewed 2022-10-20.

Thanks for the description. What are the factors of the semiprimes I posted? Note 1: When you post the factors you find with your method, can you please aslo supply the number of x-values you tested? Note 2: I will not take part in the test, but I may comment on the results. I have given my opinion (several times).

You are correct. It is clear once I think it through*. Tossing a coin into a wishing well? The coin's rotation is slowed down by the water would be the dissipative force (air resistance is neglected). *) I (incorrectly) thought of a regular toss as a measurement starting when the coin leaves the hand.

(+1) Side note: I have in my head an image of the coin far from any source of gravity. It tumbles and wobbles and can't land anywhere. Predictions about heads or tails are not possible; there is not even a definition of where the coin will land. The gravity is introduced and the coin falls down (=measurement) and we have heads or tails.

Here is a test for your ideas. I have generated some semi primes*. Please apply your ideas and post the factors. By your ideas I mean your graphs, equations, expressions, "patterns". 16 bit semiprime n: 34189 32 bit semiprime n: 2564855351 64 bit semiprime n: 14830573937595324521 96 bit semiprime n: 51710300225695220586621873149 127 bit semiprime n: 105885478296634626184079475557631302167 184 bit semiprime n: 12767878405113739778678228941014070709490602057822917487 256 bit semiprime n: 65987296772226902159803529660127173701120758847708653228034824460492065707557 512 bit semiprime n: 7836720177069608003500755381905379696113734820415437059107302880557005627301137450218819438830220854264769471529917213850983558125480442066927341587395863 1023 bit semiprime n: 69490761693879024515322409543501909771269878484507282046636369964444778350330138534492998629992038016396256793090732559749217992926715622188685818640312898075316196657706595786953437471020980242957623038475766495858035713914761703256554473705391771835499591933107282105938025772818934223909581971045391352957 2048 bit semiprime n: 24526390543922276163761960363928196029766688656050108715445599450389739269747070746319365337941271616416750589041896232434918183132656902143747734873329125429339367399911892083925190236294913521057711207069839256771767342182218357681756228812990287212506112441822553026785861136879985887637208094501026429985550942440215340084813276521593663885143089395413706069476749023299175391323954138329879311921588226542287367889696999663985429219142007825586735068016851507637293578802967253836923946950044656545745427656518620040242839141101217310921847170940220268514592632894815641661819532833727871690527012340299696283369 *) using python and cryptodome.

If I said that pleas provide a quote. It seems incorrect. Why would anyone argue that? That wouldn't be very clever if RSA is involved. Makes no sense, sorry. You claimed you already have: If "might" is replaced with "does, with 100% certainty," it will be closer to the truth. From the descriptions it seems more a kind of untestable personal belief or a wish, not a real pattern that someone can use on factorization There was no pattern when I looked, it sounds apophenia. I have followed along for six pages. I have seen no non-trivial equations so far. Thats cool, disagreement can be healthy in discussions. And in this case I see no reason not to hold on to my position. No, my opinion is quite the opposite. True. Any reason to care? Thanks. Note that I did not perform a formal test. Things claimed lacks substance; tests can't be defined. I compared some mathematical expressions in this thread to the mathematics of RSA.

Your response does not seem to adress my questions and also the mathematics I presented.

Thanks for the link. It confirms that no "faster than light" signal "instant connection" "instant fix" or similar is involved: https://phys.org/news/2022-10-quantum-entanglement-physicist-science-einstein.html

I don't find it disappointing, it is just a trivial consequence of the experiments? The experiments were not intended to falsify special relativity, the experiments were based on the assumption that SR is correct. (bold by me) https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2022/10/advanced-physicsprize2022.pdf

Correct link: The Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 - Popular science background - NobelPrize.org The advanced information might be of interest: The Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 - Scientific background - NobelPrize.org. The document gives some historic background, describes experimental setups, mathematics. It comments on what realist and local means in the perspective of the prize. Note: I find no support in the paper for any "faster than light" or "instant signals". The paper is focused on the science behind establishing the violation of Bell inequalities.

This seems like homework so I'll give some hints. - Some values may be trivially incorrect, which ones can you eliminate? - Are you familiar with any equations that could be used? Acceleration is known to be constant and initial velocity is zero (car starts from rest)

At least this comment seem illustrate your belief How many numbers do you have to test? (answer: too many when the semi prime is of realistic length) How long does the test take? (answer: very long when the semi prime is of realistic length) Have you reduced the amount of numbers that needs to be tested. (answer: no) You just need to check my description of how 0.25 is a limit and how I am correct on this. And a quick look at the graph and/or a binary conversion of the smallest of the factors of RSA-100 supports my statement. Feel free to ask for clarifications. I don't understand your claims at all. Obviously the graph tells us that 0 < x < 1051 which is already trivial given that the semi prime is an RSA number. Your graph gives no new information and is therefore not useful. What you say is already trivially known without your graph. The central part of the problem is just swept away without any explanation: It is just that the numbers of factor are huge and no improvement is presented which means that RSA (and similar methods ) is unaffected.

Sorry, the description does not seem to match the link. I see you use RSA-100 but not what the other means. Sorry, I have no clue what this means. The opposite seems true; y=0 means x is not a possible prime factor. But it does not give any information about factors. Throwing a dice would be even quicker and give the same amount of information (zero). I still have no clue what you expect someone to see that has a connection to actually finding factors of a semi prime. But it supports my note above about the lover limit of 0.25 of large semi primes related to RSA. (We can see this since RSA-100 factors are known by adjusting the plotted x-values)

That seems to be equivalent of "I don't know". If no observation or calculation can distinguish between the two options then I think your idea is invalidated. Sorry I was unclear, I meant: please provide a detailed calculation, better than my example, of how fast neutron stars shrinks in comparison to earth in your idea. Additional question: Does this mean that you think the event horizon of a black hole shrinks?

EDIT: Language issue; I confused Milling with Drilling. My comments below may not apply at all! Intuitively* I would do the opposite; very slow motion to slice through rather than try to drill. Success might depend on how much work you plan to do; doing many and/or deep holes could be rather time consuming if going slow. If available a hollow drill** might work better. A pipe with sharpened edge might work if hollow drills are not available. I would try to avoid regular (spiral) drills in soft materials, it could get stuck, tearing the soft material rather than cutting. Fast rotation makes it tricky to stop fast enough, increasing the risk. Some other possible options depending on the situation: If the material is reasonably thin and holes are small I would try a Single-hole punch (for leather, cloth, or thin plastic). Thin material and larger holes: Hollow Punch If material is soft and does not take damage; compressing it and drilling or cutting through might work If precision is required it might be an option do do a silicon mold around pins instead of drilling holes *) Note I've never drilled though silicon but have some experience with having to improvise with tools or use them in unorthodox ways, hence I share an opinion even without having an experience from the exact situation. **)video showing how to sharpen a pipe, using it as a hollow drill to make a hole in rubber: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ-s0sBMHig

So which one of your options are correct and which one is incorrect? Ok. Please provide a calculation with better precision than my example.

Advise: Try to explain your stuff, it is your stuff that makes no sense. Anyone interested in this thread already knows* about RSA and encryption. (Bold by me) This is clearer than before but still a claim and not yet an explanation (or evidence or mathematical proof). And as far as I can tell (also see the mathematics I provided) you do the opposite; making harder or impossible. I must admit that I'm not interested enough to try to provide an explanation or attempt at a mathematical proof. Sorry, it does not make sense. *) Or will ask questions here or in separate threads or read elsewhere.

Is that of interest even if the mathematics shows that your idea is incorrect?