Acme

So you have nothing to discuss that is on topic either. Fair enough.

And exactly what do you think the new finding is if not beyond what was known?

Yeah; I revisited the topic and posted the new finding in post #89 because I'm not interested. Heaven forbid that anyone actually discuss it.

No, you feel acceleration. You may have a visual sense of speed if you can see 'stationary' objects out the window, but this is not the same as feeling speed.

Why indeed. It may be unanswerable. Emergence [Emphasis mine]

You're starting to babble...again. The topic of this thread is the properties of primes which covers far more than their distribution. You and the other whiners that keep carrying on about whether or not that distribution should be called random add nothing to the topic. You et al don't agree with others of us; we get it. Now [please] just shut up about it and move on with the topic.

More word salad. Your constant arguing is what is adding nothing to the discussion of primes. Perhaps it's just your tender age, but whatever the reason it is worthless here. Now be a good boy and go back and actually read the article I posted as well as the paper that I linked to. They are in post #89

Says you. This is no more than your constant arguing about a definition of random. That you don't understand changes nothing about primes. Word salad. Your table tells you nothing about a table of 236586136850133651357137673471513 columns and since you cannot even visually take in such a table you can't use it deductively or otherwise to tell you jack squat about where primes will appear in/on it. No. That bit is about the minimum gap between primes and is focused on proving the twin prime conjecture. The piece I posted on is about the maximum gap between primes.

Very complex=random. Change the number of columns and you get an entirely different pattern. No such pattern is predictive of where the next prime lies regardless of indications of where it does not lie. See the earlier article I posted on prime gaps.

There is differential rotation in the outer layers of the Sun that varies with latitude, while interior rotation is fairly balanced. It is this outer differential rotation that apparently leads to the solar magnetic pole shifts that are in sync with the 11 year sunspot cycle. Differential rotation

Ok, good. So for a rough measure of gm/m3, weigh a small piece of tea leaf of known area and divide that area by your dust particle sizes to get average weights per particle size. Then multiply those weights by your counts from your test volume.

Yes I understood what you asked for, but it's an unrealistic conversion. Are the particles flat, spheroid, smooth, rough, etcetera is one set of considerations and exactly what 'organic' materials are they is another. Is it skin cells, insect chitin, minerals, charcoal, etcetera.

Seems like you would need to know what each dust particle is composed of before making a judgment on the total mass. That, or filter out all the dust and weigh it.

Distribution of the Last Digit of the Primes 1, 3, 7, & 9 are roughly equally distributed.

Something new on primes. Prime Gap Grows After Decades-Long Lull

It is not a simple matter of density or weight. Large dense stones can actually rise through sediments as smaller particles work under them. The only sure way to know what lies beneath is to dig/drill down and find out. Sedimentation

I don't like responses like this because they are inherently fallacious as it assumes a strawman. The creationist claim (which is inherently flawed itself) is not "what is the probability of life", but rather "what is the probability of life having arisen by random processes". These are two different claims. Fallacious/bad arguments should not be responded to with more fallacious argumentation, that just perpetuates the cycle of fallacies. And I don't like responses taken out of context. I was responding to this:

Just because something is solved/proved does not make a new or different solution/proof uninteresting. There must be dozens of different proofs of the Pythagorean theorem and new ones are still of interest. You commented in one of Commander's other threads: A math result that has no [known] applications is not of necessity uninteresting. Witness the popularity of books on 'recreational' mathematics. Pure mathematics is no less useful to the human intellect than applied mathematics is to those endeavors to which it is applied. Thinking is to the mind as exercise is to the body.

Correct. We can't know if Fermat was lying or not, and as you say, if he wasn't lying then his proof was not Wiles' proof. So Commander, do you think you have a proof, or are you looking to tease one out of a group effort here?

If I told you I'd have to...well, you know. North Korea experiencing severe Internet outages

Our bodies are our gardens to which our wills are gardeners.

We could talk about Bucky Fuller and what a nutter he was.

I get an error message from that link; data not available. Anyway, unless one takes into account how many in that population rise retire and how many are too young to work, your simplistic calculation is invalid.

You know what they say about assumptions. There is simply no evidence that consciousness is an imperative. Colloquially, sometimes shit happens. For some understanding into what consciousness is -that is how it operates- look into Doug Hofstadter's books and the concepts of strange loops and tangled hierarchies. Note that Hofstadter coined the term 'tangled hierarchy' and others writing on it in relation to consciousness have coopted the term to their own purpose.

One does not let a wolf guard the sheep.