BC_Programming

Both of those figures are wrong. the orbit of neither the Earth nor Pluto is perfectly spherical, so the distances are not absolute but are a range between their apogee and perigee. the distance varies from 91 million miles to 94.5 million miles for Earth. Pluto's distance ranges from approx 2.6 billion miles to 2.8 billion miles (which isn't a lot unless you consider that it's nearly equal to the difference between Earth's apogee and perigee. Additionally, it is by no means necessary to know the distance from the earth to the sun in order to know the distance from Pluto to the Sun. A simple experiment can be performed to this end. 1.Find somebody who doesn't know the distance from the Sun to the earth. 2. Tell then the distance from Pluto to the Sun TADA! they now know the distance from Pluto to the Sun without even knowing the distance between Earth and the sun! Amazing! Lastly, I might point out that Astronomy is far more then the memorization of numbers and facts; these can always be looked up, after all, and the memorization comes with use. Astronomy is about space. what a person Should eventually understand is such things as parallax measurement and the mathematics behind it, not some meaningless numbers. It's neither a "Kelper" belt or a "keiper" belt but the Kuiper Belt. Yes. theyre is a truly awful word when you don't have an apostrophe handy.

question 1: 2^20=1048576 addressable storage locations. Note that a "storage location" is generally known as a "segment" and in this case the segment offset to each specific byte would need to be in a separately stored offset. the second question depends on wether the first byte is addressed as 0 or 1. usually 0 is a "null" sentinel, so almost all pointers to memory (memory addresses) would be >0, so the answer would be 4096.

Thank goodness you understand these. You really should go tell those dedicated physicists with degrees in high science what complete and utter retards they are. Black holes, neutron stars, quasars. All things supposed to have existed before they were confirmed to be. And they all met with blatant opposition from the scientific community. "belief" in Black holes were regarded as a "crime against science" for a good number of years. Probably partly due to the fact that the first person who concieved of a Neutron star was Fritz Zwicky, who was regarded as an irritating buffoon by most of the science community. Hmm, curse that devious little man! he must have put those neutron stars there for astronomers to find just to confirm his theories! The fact that Einsteins theories essentially predicted that black-holes existed disturbed him to no end; he even tried revising it in a way that made it so that they weren't possible. And even then, he refused to accept that they existed. This is Einstein, whom people regard as a scientific genius; this means he was wrong about black-holes, and yet, his theory was right about them. What's your point? whatever the ratio is- Einsteins various theories predict the accurate movement- his was one of the first theories to merge space and time as a nearly single entity- to have space directly affect time, in much the same way as he conjectured that matter and energy are interchangable. This led to the fact that something that affects space (gravity) also effects time. Additionally, he didn't really "doctor" the math just so it would satisfy that particular case; if that was so it was a damn good coincidence that everything observed since then has happened to fit those theories. I am unaware of any failures in special relativity...

the problem with pictoral representations is that they are always 2-dimensional; an image that is, for example, a picture, is just a representation of the space within that image; thankfully, our brains our essentially built to recognize things like scenes and faces; and we're smart enough to know that the picture of aunt martha isn't actual size and she's 3 inches tall. This is what makes representing the curvature of 3-dimensional space difficult; the fact that it will need to be represented on a flat surface combined with the fact that it requires proper interpretation of a "fourth dimension" as well as space and time (or lack thereof) outside our universe. The best thing I can think of is to consider a large 3-d grid encompassing the universe; gravity causes stretches and so forth in this grid, but you can only observe such stretches and shifts from another point in space; if you are within the "stretched" space it appears normal, and the rest of the universe appears to be malformed. Now, with regards to black holes; we are all aware that nothing can escape a black hole, but why? extremely powerful gravity; this deforms the space around it so much that it becomes a "pinch" in space; and at and within the event horizon there is literally such a spatial curve that there is no going "away" from the singularity at any speed. This behaviour is represented in a 2-d plane as the aforementioned "bubble" that forms; normal "bumps" in 2d space are merely depressions; but black holes literally form a bubble underneath; nothing can escape because the negative slope implies a requirement of faster then light travel (it's contrived, but something analogous might be happening in higher dimensions) But remember: the math is simply our own concept to understand the actual physics that take place; regarding black holes, it may simply be similar to taking the root of a negative number; we need to extend to another dimension of numbers; negative roots yield Complex numbers, (I can't remember the case) but a certain similar unsolvable case with Complex numbers yields not one, but TWO number sets; the quaternions and the Hypercomplex numbers. One can easily see that unsolvable cases in these two would yield four more number sets. It's not really the math failing at the level but rather the fact that we don't have a math that doesn't fail. Only 30 years ago hardly any scientists even considered that black holes existed simply based on that premise; that the math doesn't work. But they do. As I said; it's not a matter of math as a whole failing to make sense of the physics involved but rather that we haven't yet derived a math that does. With regards to spatial warping, it breaks a LOT of geometry "laws"; for example, not all triangles will add up to 180 degrees. This doesn't mean that space doesn't bend; it just means that euclidian geometry has failed for this instance; remember that almost all mathematical studies are really just abstractions of physics itself; euclidian geometry confines itself to a flat plane, so while in that scenario we can assert that all triangles angles will add up to 180 degrees, this is only true for a subset. does this mean that higher dimensions with spatial warping don't conform to some set of rules? Of course not. It just means we haven't discovered them yet. In fact, all of this leads up to something that has been sought for decades, if not centuries; the master set of rules that work on everything. As far as physics is concerned, we're working with Einsteins theories. Are they complete? probably not; there is really no way to know for sure until something one of his formulas predict simply does not happen. Before that, we were all working with Newtonian physics. Now, Newton himself admitted that the laws/rules he derived were not all-binding, and that they failed under specific circumstances, such as when very large masses were involved. One of the early signs that the newtonian laws weren't really up to snuff for the decade came with Newtons theories failed to explain Mercury's perihelion, or closest approach to the sun; rather then being at a fixed point, the perihelion appeared to "rotate" around the sun. This defied newtons laws which predicted that it would remain in the same place. Einstein originally formulated many of his theories simply to replace newton's; that is, the refine newtons theories so that they worked to explain the perihelion. What does this have to do with any of this? Well, I'm merely saying that Einsteins theories might also not be complete; at some point we may observe behaviour in the universe that defies them. At that point I'm sure another genius will develop a new, refined theory. Newtons theory took no heed of the speed of light, and in fact didn't even regard time as a dimension; Einsteins does. Perhaps there is a 5th dimension, as of yet unknown, that would help explain some of the mysteries man has observed throughout the universe.

the traditional representation of 3-d space and time and how it warps due to gravity is to envision a flat plane; gravity is symbolized by depressions in this plane; (for example, throw a ball onto a stretched sheet; the depression it makes will "attract" other items you place onto the sheet). a Black hole is theorized to form a one way ticket to a bubble of space that the black hole has captured. perhaps it even breaks off completely; like a bubble. a wormhole, on the other hand, is like a vortex; it could be formed by any number of disturbances. Consider water currents and eddies and how they intermingle and occasionally form small vortexes; this is similar to how a wormhole forms. One side forms semi-randomly due to gravitational anomolies, and the other side "snakes" from that point through space outside our universe; eventually rejoining our universe at some possibly far off point. The concept is simple; while perhaps the space in our universe from the entrance to the exit might be several million light-years, the stretch of the wormhole could distort the space within it to be a much shorter distance; perhaps less than 100 light years. It is at this point I must contest the common visual depiction of worm-holes in TV and movies. Now, obviously, nobody really knows what it looks like. But theoretically, you are moving outside the known universe; there are no stars there; I would supposition that you would only see a bright light in two directions: the entrance, and the exit. the entrance light is formed by light being sucked into the wormhole; the exit light is the same. (this is under the assumption that such spacial anomalies would be insensitive to "direction of travel" which makes sense. Now, going by this, it would be unnecessary to have "two" worm hole entry points. Although it is feasible that a second wormhole might intercept the first outside the universe, but that's just head-ache-inducing to fathom.