BigMoosie

Depends on how the accellaration is being created. If it is gravity then it will be not noticable because all the instruments will be moving at the same speed as the body. If it is accellaration from its own creating then yes you will notice accellaration, as accellaration can only occur if the body is expelling some kind of matter in the opposite direction.

I know, stupid NASA has poured millions of dollars of research into this and now a smaller group with a smaller budged has found out that they can test the theory simply by studying the impulse of two closely orbiting pulsars.

Actually I heard somewhere that it relativity predicts an undetected (as of yet) ever so slight extra warp in space when heavy objects spin, but I'm sure that is just trivial.

I made one, quite a basic one, but it works online and you dont have to download anything (written in javascript): http://www.gooba.rollingtank.com/2d.htm The only problem is that you must use Internet Explorer and you must write equations in javaScript like: y = Math.sin(x); // sine y = Math.atan(x); // inverse tan (arctan) y = Math.pow(2,x); // exponential Operations: x + 2 x - 2 x / 2 x * 2 Brackets must include * even when one seems obvious like: (x+1)*(x-1) edit: just saw the other one ^, mines a piece of crap compared, but the language I chose was definantly not the one for the job

All the matter in the universe might be orbiting the center of mass, but any such rotation is measurable. I guess what I was getting confused about is that I was considering the body an entity with no extent such as a point (which I presume for rotation would not be measureble). But when you have a sphere rotating, imagine the effects of somebody living at the equator, they would experience less gravity than somebody at the poles because they are thrust outwards by the centrifugal force.

Thanks for those sources, I am pretty sure with the question about rotation, just wasn't thinking straight on the day I posted it. As for space expanding. I realise how it is supposed to be happening and understand the theory behind it. But all I am saying is that it might necessarily not have to be true. If time was speeding up or the speed of light decreasing it would explain things just as perfectly. We have equations that relate space and time, when we notice things changing like the space expanding we can look back to these equations and realise that that may not be the factor that is changing but other parts of out equations might be making the same observations. For example, if I see something increase in size by double, it may not be that it increased but rather that I shrunk. Also if galaxies appear red shifted, then it is possible that time is faster now than when it was emitted thus making the oscillations of the wave look like they take longer than other light waves from closer galaxies. Does nobody follow me?

It does not matter how large the effects are, I wouldnt even go so far as a mm for pluto. But what I was getting at is that if we are perceiving that space is expanding then it is just as valid to say that time is speeding up (I know I said slowing in the title but I meant speeding). Can anybody see my argument?

Thanks for your suggestions, I just removed the comma before the "and", I chose to keep in the ands as that is how most people pronounce numbers. I noticed for some reason when I copied the numbers from this table I must have not selected some, now your number can be up to 315 numbers long. I was thinking about including the googol but chose not to as that number really is just a joke.

I just created a script that writes any number up to 303 digits long in English: http://www.random.abrahamjoffe.com.au/public/JavaScripts/number_pronunciator.htm Tell me what you think, is it flawed in any way? Like for example: 1001 outputs: "One thousand, and one.", is the comma supposed to be there, and the "and" ?

Ok, but it is there, I expected it to be practically null, but if everythink is expanding including star systems then so must the distance between the nucles and the electrons or perhaps even the size of subatomic particles.

The input number will not be written by a person but sent from other sections of code that I have to accept as a number, for all practical purposes it is practically a string of length 15 (excluding decimal). The only way to identify repetition is to write code to manually search for it. An ever so slight margin of error is acceptable for ridiculously large or ridiculously small numbers.

Thanks dave, I'm just trying to get my head around how to effectively identify the repeating part. Can you suggest any iterative methods?

Hi, I am trying to write a program that will take a number and output the numerator and the denominator of the number as a ratio. I know one way of doing this mathematically: [math]x = 5.142857142857142857 (given)[/math] [math]1,000,000x = 5,142,857.142857142857[/math] [math]1,000,000x - x = 999,999x = 5,142,852[/math] [math]x = \frac{5,142,852}{999,999}[/math] [math]x = \tfrac{36}{7}[/math] I could write a code that does this but this piece of code will be executed very often in my code so I want it to be optimised to be very efficient. Does anybody know any other ways of doing this? - Oh if it is any help, the input number has a maximum of 15 decimal places.

Ooops... I think my brain farted, thanks for correcting me. I think instead of [math]\sqrt{i} = \tfrac{1}{2} + \tfrac{\sqrt{2}}{2}[/math] I meant [math]\sqrt{i} = \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} + \tfrac{\sqrt{2}i}{2}[/math]... it was close

But their legs well get stretched apart?

Ooops made an error, meant: 0 * hedgehog = 0 But never mind, must change topic like lil dave sayed.

I would expect it to be as meaningful as 0 * hedgehog = hedgehog That to me seems like a correct statement.

Sorry for the confusion, the * means multiplication, I being a programmer feel this is pretty universally known but forget that it isnt outside of programming circles. I tried to use LaTeX but putting the word "undefined" in it caused it to think I was hacking or something... Oh an 0 I mean zero, thought that was pretty obvious though

I want to use it and study it for philisophical as well as mathematical reasons, kinda hard to explain but... anyway, we no longer need to discuss it if that is how you feel. I would like to know however if this statement is true: 0 * undefined = 0

I am surprised to hear that this could make you quesy! We are just chatting here and I am gaining from this, I hope it doesnt cause you too much distress... Perhaps what I wanted was [math] y = \lim_{a\to\infty} \prod_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{x+{\tfrac{n}{\sqrt{a}}}}{x +{\tfrac{n}{\sqrt{a}}}} [/math]

But what I am after is a nice formula in terms of x Also note that what I am after is one such that is not defined at any real value be it rational or not, I was so certain that my first post was that

Back to my first equation, what I was after was something like: [math]y = \frac{(x-\infty) ... (x-2)(x-1)(x)(x+1)(x+2) ... (x+\infty)}{(x-\infty) ... (x-2)(x-1)(x)(x+1)(x+2) ... (x+\infty)}[/math] This would create a line that is one unit from the x-axis but not defined at any intefer. But what I was trying to create was somethin that would, instead of incrementing by 1 in each braket but increment by an infitessimal value so that we would have a line that has had infinte sections removed until it no longer exist, could you write the equation for this?

Would I be correct to presume that if the line were followed through the complex plane that the distance from the origin will continually increase like a spiral cutting through the real line every time a dot appears? From my understanding this is a spiral that is infinitedly dense which is quite hard to get your head around, or am I way off?

I don't know how to solve radical exponents and was only presuming that they would create real y's when x was a special radical but it doesnt really matter... Do these kinds of curves with infinite spaces in them have a specific name so I can do a search for them?

I dont see why we need to use log, and I know of only one log mind you. You quoted me wrong, I said: "any x that can be expressed as a ratio" Surely (-2)^(1/5) is the same as -(2^(1/5) therefore real? But since we can find infinity x's that create real y's and there are an infinite x's that dont then it is like a very finely dotted line? I know that 1/n indices create n solutions but if it is odd and the base is negative then surely one of them will be real?