timo

But on the other hand 5+5=10, which is does not contain 3 as a prime factor

You can use the Newton-Raphson method or the bisection method and root-finding methods by hand and get the location to any accuracy you desire, no problem. It's just a bit tiresome, and computers are a bit faster at tiresome additions, multiplications, and divisions.

Here's your correction: You are wrong. Energy is conserved in all know particle physics processes. What happens is that particles can transform into other particles within some constraints (such as the just-mentioned conservation of energy). "Energy" itself is not a particle. What people often mean by "annihilate into energy" is that the particles transform into particles with very little mass (e.g. light, or "photons" if you want to impress people with scientifically-sounding terms). There is also light being produced in the particle physics processes at particle colliders, just not exclusively. There are two main parameters (that I can think of at the moment) that influence the amount of light yield (compared to the production rate of other particles): - There can be constraints that at least forbid a complete transformation in only light (e.g. the baryon number conservation forbids two protons to transform into only light, electron and positron may annihilate into only light). - The higher the total energy, the more likely non-light products become. Keep in mind that the total energy of a proton-proton collision at LHC is roughly ten million times the total energy of an annihilation of an electron and a positron at low energies.

Since you're explicitly asking for opinions that may be helpful or an interesting point of view here's mine: It's a terrific read, sounds like a random collection of sentences from the start on, and absolutely does not motivate the (potential) reader to continue with reading after the first few sentences. Just have a look at your introduction: That's the first two sentences and they don't even connect to each other. Hadn't I decided to give you a reply here I had stopped reading at this point already. To make matters worse, these two sentences are followed by a quote from a text that, big surprise, also does not connect to either of the two sentences that came before it, and isn't commented in any way, either. That's the point where I stopped reading despite giving you a reply here. Skimming over the rest of the text I see a lot of formulas well known to every physicist or interested layman and simple rearrangement of equations, but little explanations. The a few random sentences I saw either contradict previous sentences or even seem awkward by themselves ("We also recall here that gravitational force is approximated by force divided by I."). I don't see how anyone would take (waste) the time to even read through all of what you wrote. You need to put much more effort into creating a proper piece of literature. Please understand that I am not interested in spending much time on discussing your pdf or your idea; I'm not qualified to referee a proper quantum gravity paper, anyways. It would be nice if my suggestion to (drastically) improve readability is helpful for you, but I am also not offended if it seems irrelevant to you.

This link may be an interesting starting point for you.

Newbies_kid: I think, the whole reason for taking citations as a measure is that no one has yet devised a better measure of "quality". I sure agree that it is a dubious measure, but it is also not exactly fair to say one should instead look at quality when you cannot even define what quality is.

Why would I want to consider cryptic comments and stories about dead Greeks when I don't even know what your point is?

It's not quite clear whom that is addressed to. qijino1236 did not speak about computer scientist being required, he merely talked about a more abstract "connects to everything". I did speak about the requirement of computer scientist in an attempt to make sense of qijno1236's text, but did not actually say that they were required. I in fact implied quite the opposite, but would not go as far as to make a claim out of it, because I actually know very little about fields that computer scientists work in. Except that I've never met one in physics, and wouldn't know why someone in that field would hire one.

But you said, that much is for sure

I doubt that. Just because computers are widely used doesn't mean that a computer specialist is widely required. You sure don't like structuring things, though. And if I had to shot in the dark (I don't know anything about you, except that mess of a text you wrote) I would say that your problems with programming classes may exactly lie there. Note also that most jobs (for academics in industry) explicitly state that they are looking for applicants that have "the ability to work structured". This also implies setting priorities. I'm not the most structured person there is. For me, sitting together with other persons and discussing helps a lot to structure things and focus on the important points (that applies to many fields, not just work). "Is connected to" is a very weak statement. The alarm time on my alarm clock is connected to some very important points regarding my current work, but that doesn't make it interesting or worth attending - except for the question when to go to bed and for the fact that I'd better not ignore the alarm, of course. No and no. I see no reason why you should voluntarily continue doing something you hate (with the hope of some time doing something you hate professionally?), and I also see little to no point in doing something you hate in your spare time (I'd recommend spending your spare time doing things you like). For the record: I am not a computer scientist, but perhaps you still find my comments being of interest to you.

He knows that it's forbidden. That's a good start, I think.

You only know what you do, not utter. Without deed, word starves. Word god has not the education or rationale to comprehend Nature's Harmonic Time Cube.

I had to abort the experiment after six divides. No comprehension of infinity set in. You owe me a pencil.

incidently, that was my first though, too

He probably still lives where he did when he left sfn . But I feel that wasn't really your question. Perhaps more to the point: he decided not to post on sfn anymore a few years ago (at least I think it was a few years), and apparently stuck to his plan.

Center-of-mass points are points by definition. Bringing such sheets sufficiently close to another (and ignoring that at some point the atomic structure will come into play) can cause arbitrarily large attractive forces. However, it seems to me as if you think that the gravitational attraction between two objects is always a center-of-mass-to-center-of-mass one. That is not the case in general. Minor comment: I don't think that "nearly infinite" is a term that makes sense, given that "infinite" roughly means "larger than any real number" and "larger than nearly any real number" and "nearly larger than any real number" both make no sense.

As Swansont said, charge is a property of particles. However, your understanding of a property seems to be that properties can be taken away from objects. That is not necessarily the case, as can be seen in many non-physical examples: the age of a person, the color of an object, the size of a file, .... I don't have a good example where the property cannot be changed as in the case of the electrical charge of an electron, but maybe someone can find one (the color of "a red car" perhaps ).

I think you meant that A' is discontinuous in -pi and pi, not A. Why not simply integrate from 1 to (1+2pi), and not have your problem? EDIT: Oh, I overlooked something: If A' is discontinuous: How can (A' exp(A))' exist?

The first critique would be your terrific line spacing, and eight spaces between an outer and an inner block is complete overkill to me. More spaces and more tabs do not necessarily make a code mode readable. You probably didn't do that on purpose, but please note that "please invest some time in commenting on my code, I didn't bother to spend the two minutes of my time to properly format it" is just plain rude.

If I understand your question correctly you are asking how one could ever hope to detect a white hole? Perhaps you would see traces of apparently some large amount of mass suddenly coming into appearance out of nowhere with a huge bang at some point in the past? That was a joke, of course. I spontaneously have no idea.

I never heard the term "eternal singularity model", but the white hole region in Schwarzschild coordinates is the region where the radial distance from the center is negative, if I remember correctly (I leave it up to you to evaluate how sensible this is). I'm not really sure I get your question. If I undertand you correctly then I would say guess you reached the while hole horizont once the radial distance equals minus the Schwarzschild radius (but that's just a guess based on symmetry). There is not axis labels on your diagram, particularly none called "t"

He even .

I use scp (secure copy). Only for single files (for full directories/projects I use subversion), but I would expect that scp can also copy full directories if you add a "-r" switch or something like that.

If I knew the answer to that I would start an IT company.

You are seeing yourself in the role of Napoleon being assassinated by poisoning because of your thread on an Internet forum being moved to a different section. What do you think might be the average reader's impression of you?