Strange

As noted already, we don't change the world or the laws of physics, we just discover what they are. If your questions is actually: "will future discoveries allow us to travel in time" then the only possible answer is: "we don't know". If we did know, then it wouldn't require future discoveries. There are good reasons to think that time travel is impossible, but they are more philosophical than scientific.

C++ is not too different from Java. It uses explicit memory management (allocation and destruction of objects). Most of the rest is syntax. http://www.cplusplus.com/doc/tutorial/ http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/

Of course. If you change the laws of physics then you can do whatever you want. But that is science fiction, not science.

Not true. Nothing to do with gravity. You are confusing cause and effect. A star (which is hot) with a given mass will have exactly the same gravity as a black hole of the same mass. Actually, the star will have slightly more gravity because there will be a contribution from its energy as well as its mass. Nothing to do with gravity. There are many other ways of preserving things. Vacuum, canning, pickling, ... They all prevent or slow the activity of bacteria and moulds. There is nothing special about freezing. You could just as well suggest that vinegar has more gravity because it makes things last longer. This is only true for biological and, possibly, chemcial activity. It has no effect on radioactive decay, the lifetime of unstable particles, etc. That seems like a non sequitur. (And what is the evidence supporting it?)

This website is worth a browse for all the many attempts at machines that don't work: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

It appears to be wrong in almost every detail. In your first section, you say that a12 should be equal to a21. This is clearly untrue. When you drop a small stone, do you really expect the Earth to accelerate towards the stone at the same rate that the stone accelerates towards the stone? It looks as if pretty much every assumption and every conclusion is contradicted by observation. Perhaps you should have spent your "many years" actually studying physics?

Why not? I didn't just want to give my own, unsupported definition. Do you have a source for your definition?

Apparently not: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/periodic

Newton had the concepts behind the laws of motion, the universal law of gravitation, calculus, optics, and many other things. He was not just the secretary of the Royal Mint. And it is pronounced "decart": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes

Isn't that what "periodic" means?

I have done that and pointed out some of the places where you appear to be wrong.

If you look at the evidence (something you have urged people to do in other threads) then you will see that nuclear is one of the safest, if not the safest, sources of power. And the damage to the nuclear reactors at Fukushima has done very little harm. No one killed or even injured by radiation. The big killer and major source of destruction was the tsunami (unleashed by your designer god?)

You mean we should just agree with you instead of looking at the facts? Citation needed. "Quartz crystals are manufactured for frequencies from a few tens of kilohertz to hundreds of megahertz." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_oscillator It is almost as if you are just making stuff up.

First, there is nothing special about "Solfeggio" notes. It is just a way of referring to notes in the Western musical scale (do-re-mi-fa-so-la ... etc). Secondly, they are not 111Hz apart. The conventional frequency of A2 is 110Hz. So A3, an octave above, is 110Hz higher (double the frequency). The notes in the scale are related by a constant ratio, not a constant difference. http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~suits/notefreqs.html Few, if any, of those appear to be scientific resources. Doing the same search on Google Scholar, for example, shows nothing of any significance. A is 110Hz. So A# is 116.54Hz. F# is 185Hz. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schumann_resonances "Schumann resonances are the principal background in the electromagnetic spectrum[1] beginning at 3 Hz and extend to 60 Hz,[2] and appear as distinct peaks at extremely low frequencies (ELF) around 7.83 (fundamental),[3] 14.3, 20.8, 27.3 and 33.8 Hz.[1][4]" So nothing there about 111Hz. Have you ever considered using scientific (i.e. peer reviewed) sources rather than random websites, many of which appear to unsupported mysticism.

If you think trees are symmetrical, then I have a feeling you are using a very loose definition of symmetry under which anything can appear symmetrical... What about the fact that organic molecules are frequently chiral? And many organisms exhibit handedness (fiddler crab?).

I did look at the web page you linked. It provided no sources or references for the claims it made. I did find this PR site, which appears to be the source of some of the text you copied (without acknowledgement): http://www.prweb.com/releases/ancient_temples/archaeology/prweb3243374.htm But again, no references to the sources. On the other hand, it is hardly surprising that structures such as temples would be designed with resonant frequencies around the fundamentals of the human voice. Meh. I don't think the notes have a difference of 111Hz. However, the traditional starting point for scales is a note A with a frequency of 110Hz. Therefore the next octave is 110Hz above that.

Could you explain the following, to provide a bit of context for your comments. Could you explain what mathematics led you to this conclusion? What is a "gateway frequency"? What is a "solfeggio note"? And where did you find out about the frequency difference? (It seems a little odd to use the word "harmony" here, as notes with a constant frequency difference would be rather discordant.) Said by whom? And which sacred places, choirs, worshippers, etc? Can you provide a citation for this work? Can you provide a citation for this work?

Yes it is. But that doesn't mean that science as a whole can prove anything.

It is a detergent (like soap).

But that is mathematics, not science, a field (the only field?) where it is possible to prove things.

Yes, the 4-byte string variable is a pointer. In C++ this is a pointer to a structure which contains information about the string including a pointer to the actual string of characters in memory. In C++ the memory used for the characters is allocated automatically when you assign a value to it. In a language like C, you need to manually allocate the space for the string. So, if you want to get a better understanding of how strings work, it might be worth looking at C strings first.

That looks like 43 characters to me so, basically, 43*8 bits. But as it is a C++ string object there will be some extra bytes used to define extra information about the object (I don't know the details of how C++ string types are represented). Not sure I understand this... Do you mean, how can a four-byte variable represent an arbitrary string? That is because what the "string" variable contains is actually just a pointer (the address in memory where the string object is stored).

Strings typically use 8 per character. This allows up to 255 different characters to be represented. Just the printable Latin alphabet can be represented in fewer bits but there is no real reason to do this. To support internationalization 16 or 32 bits can be used. Strings then are just concatenations of these. So to represent OR you would need two 8 bit characters: 79 and 80 in the standard ASCII code. You also need some way of indicating the length of the string (how many characters are in it). Some languages do this by including an extra count byte at the start. Others (e.g. C) add a zero byte at the end to mark the end of the string. By OR'ing your two 5 bit characters you lose information because many different pairs of characters will give you the same result.

A function is a piece of code with a name. You can provide it with values and it can return a value when it completes. It is a type of subroutine. http://www.cs.utah.edu/~germain/PPS/Topics/functions.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subroutine

Also, measuring one photon does not change the other. It just tells you what state the other is in.