Strange

Well, I suppose there might be some genetic component that makes some people better at sports; longer legs or whatever. This will tend to be inherited by their children. But I suspect personality, attitude and motivation are more significant. If you are wondering whether all the years of training will be passed on to the children then, no. Although the attitude and determination might be, though the way they are brought up.

Have you compiled and run the code? Did it work as you expected? The logic of this statement: if (WINTER_TIME < temperature1); is wrong. It should be: if (temperature1 < WINTER_TIME) i.e. "if temperature less than WINTER_TIME" Also, you don't want the semicolon at the end of the line. That will end the statement meaning that the next line (println) will be unconditional. You might want to get in the habit of always putting braces around conditional statements. It avoids silly problems when you add extra lines. For example: if (WINTER_TIME < temperature1) { System.out.println("Put on shorts and a light jacket"); } And you want to sort out your indentation to make your code more readable.

In fact, it seems to be the easiest point in time to calculate the combined effect of the two on the Earth as the two vectors will be aligned so you can simply add the two forces. At any other point, you will have to take into account the angle between the two vectors.

And you don't know that the number of vowels in the word is irrelevant. I have exactly the same amount of evidence for this argument as you do. I'm afraid it is exactly the same as what you have done. We have both done some work with things that have no connection to the subject (great circles or number of vowels) and come up with 206. My "proof" is exactly as valid as yours. Of course I understand the concept of rounding. You suggested that 206 would be "rounded" to 207. There is no reason for rounding an integer to another integer. It is already rounded. You keep saying you have answered the question of why you are using 206 instead of 206.7682843 (which could be rounded to 207) but I am not able to find any such answer. Please either state which post you answered this in or provide the answer here. Edit: OK, I see you made a reference to an old comment by Feynman which mentioned 206. Why do you insist on using an out of date and inaccurate value rather than the correct value?

No it isn't 206 rounded to 207. Why on Earth would anyone round 206 to 207? It is 206.7682843 (which is obviously much closer to 207 than 206). So why are you wasting your time calculating the wrong value using irrelevant methods? 207 is 3x3x23 which is obviously much more important.

I just wanted to make sure that someone reading the thread would not be misled by the word "experience" and get the idea that someone moving at high speed relative to something else (as we are ourselves) would feel time pass differently. We feel time ticking away normally even though we are stationary with respect to our neighbor, travelling at 15 km/s relative to Voyager and 99%c relative to cosmic rays. It is only from those other frames of reference that our clocks would appear to run slow.

First, once again you have ignored the fact that the ratio is NOT 206. The value is closer to 207. You are calculating the wrong value. You should be calculating 207. Why do you keep ignoring this? Not really. If I say that the planets are moved around in their orbits by invisible pink flying unicorns, that is not science. But it is exactly equivalent to the numbers you are making up: factually incorrect and with no basis in reality. Science is about gathering evidence and analysing it. Not making up stories that sound nice. The fact that you use great circles is irrelevant and polyhedra is irrelevant as these have nothing to do with muons or electrons. I use other factors which are equally relevant, therefore you have to agree that my calculations are exactly as significant as yours (i.e. not at all significant). Here they are again for you: It is the lowest positive integer (when written in English) to employ all of the vowels once only. There are exactly 206 different linear forests on five labeled nodes, and exactly 206 regular semigroups of order four up to isomorphism and anti-isomorphism. There are 206 bones in the typical adult human body. It is (mass of muon) / (mass of electron) - 1. (At least that last one has some connection with the physics under discussion.)

Your answer to my comment that you are calculating the wrong value was to say: Why are you not calculating 207, which is a closer integer approximation? Better still, why are you not calculating the correct value?

It is true that all theories are flawed but ... I don't know. Why would you ask such a thing. It has nothing to do with the big bang theory. No, it is an observation not a theory. No, it is a hypothesis to explain a number of different observations. Because that isn't what the big bang theory says. It certainly seems to be true in your case. You don't seem to know anything about the science that you are criticizing. You seem to have made up a lot of other things as well.

I don't see much lack of certainty in your posts. I do see a total lack of evidence, rational thinking and knowledge of the subjects your are talking about.

So why are you presenting it on a science forum? I gave you several random ways of arriving at 206. But the value you actually want is closer to 207.

A couple of points. When you say one is moving and the other is stationary, that is purely a relative statement. You could say the first is stationary and the second is moving. Also, the one who is considered to be moving will not experience time differently. Their time will be seen as different relative to the other observer. (And, because we can consider either as moving, the reverse is true: observer A sees B's clock running slow and B sees A's clock running slow.)

So you are just ignoring the fact that the value you are trying to calculate is not 206? It is not even an integer. Please show how your method calculates the value 206.7682843. Other ways of coming up with 206? It is the lowest positive integer (when written in English) to employ all of the vowels once only. There are exactly 206 different linear forests on five labeled nodes, and exactly 206 regular semigroups of order four up to isomorphism and anti-isomorphism. There are 206 bones in the typical adult human body. It is (mass of muon) / (mass of electron) - 1.

Except the mass ratio is closer to to 207 than 206. Which makes your post meaningless as well as just random numerology. As this is a science site, here is a reference: http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mmusme

There is no evidence that such a thing happened and therefore no reason to believe it happened. It appears you don't know what the big bang theory says. It has nothing to do with "creation" or explosions. It is simply a description of the evolution of the universe from an earlier hot dense state, based on the available evidence. I don't see where faith comes into it. There are a number of hypotheses for the origin of life based on the currently available evidence. There are a great many unanswered questions still. So what? I fail to see where faith comes into it.

Great. Because you are unaware of the research and you haven't seen it happen, then it is impossible. But you have already shown that your understanding is woefully inadequate. Or, to be generous, highly selective. Strawman. You mean they do understand the language but, oddly, their understanding contradicts your made-up meanings for words.

It is a fascinating discovery but I can't help but point out that mechanical gears were obviously not "inspired" by nature as they existed before this was discovered. On the other hand, many novel developments are being inspired by nature (adhesives based on gecko feet, fibres based on spider silk, etc.)

The big bang theory describes the evolution of the universe from an early hot dense stage. It doesn't describe the origin and it doesn't say the universe came from nothing. There are all sorts of speculations about the earliest period before our models are valid. The most plausible (to me) explanation is some sort of "big bounce" but, unfortunately, the evidence doesn't currently support that. There is also "eternal inflation" that suggests that new "big bangs" are continuously happening. Then there is Poplawski's idea that a black hole can create a new universe. And on and on ...

What is "it" that has been cracked using a computer? And by whom? (Again, you might want to read a book on clear communication. An introductory college text on essay writing would probably be a useful start. Pronouns with no antecedents tend to be pretty much meaningless. Maybe English is not your native language, in which case you may need to take a bit more care, or get someone else to help you.) In what way do you think the language looks like puns? I am not an expert on the Egyptian language, but is appears be a typical Afroasiatic language. This is very confusing. It sounds as if you are saying that "computer code" is a natural language. But even so, Egyptian is a typical Afroasiatic language which, therefore, bears no relation to any computer code that I am aware of. What computer code are you talking about. Although little is known of the origins of human language it is likely to have been something like 100,000 years before the Egyptian language. Egyptian and hundreds, maybe thousands, of other languages would have developed over the intervening period and spread across the whole world. Why do you think there is something special about Egyptian? So your entire "theory" is based on making up arbitrary new meanings for words which already have well attested meanings. Citation needed: what physical evidence are you referring to? Citation needed: what evidence are you referring to?

That is a ridiculous assumption. For one thing, we know from experience as well as history that when writing is introduced to a culture there has always been a reluctance to write down oral traditions. This is partly because the oral transmission process itself is considered very important and surrounded by many rituals (it has to be, in order to be effective) and also because the stories themselves are considered too important and/or sacred to be "cheapened" by being written down. Writing is initially used for trade, administration, laws and recording the achievements of the king/ruler. The absence of something that no one (who has actually studied the subject) would expect is hardly evidence of anything. And, as has been repeatedly pointed out, this is not true. Are you now lying deliberately to try and maintain this fictional history? Yours frequently is, that is for sure. It takes a lot of interpolation and guesswork to understand what you are talking about.

I know. If you remember, I pointed that out to you. (Although for some reason you rejected that out of hand.) There are no books that pre-date the invention of writing because, at that time, there was no form of writing. How hard is it to understand that? If you believe there was then you will need to provide some evidence. But, as you admit, there is no such evidence. Therefore you are just making this up. It is fantasy, not science. After 4 pages of your made-up stories about ancient writing systems and languages that didn't exist, now you worry about taking the thread off topic? You have already hijacked the thread. You might as well provide some support for this nonsense. By the way, there is a very interesting discussion to be had about the psychological and social effects that make societies very reluctant to adapt proto-writing to a full writing system able to fully represent a language. This is one reason why it has always taken a long time to go from proto-writing (lists of goods, accounts, basic calculations, etc) to full writing. How much have you actually studied historical linguistics or the development and/or decoding of writing systems? I wonder because you make some grand claims (like having read all ancient texts!) that I don't think any expert in the field would make.

Of course not. This is before the invention of writing. Well, it is hardly surprising that stone or clay would last longer than vegetable matter. And, with a few exceptions, they are not incomprehensible. And the word is gobbledygook. GOBBLEDYGOOK. Here's an idea: they never existed. As you have zero evidence that this books existed, then it is hardly surprising that they no longer exist. I assume the reason that you think evidence would be off topic is because the topic of this thread is "stuff I made up".

Good grief. That was supposed to be irony, to highlight how hard it is to understand what you are trying to say. I assume you mean something like: "no books that I think existed before the invention of writing survive". Well, no. Because writing hadn't been invented and so there were no books. If you are trying to imply that there is a forgotten form of writing that pre-dates known writing systems then why didn't these "ancients" leave any texts on stone or metal as many later civilizations did? p.s. Am I to assume from your vague references to Egypt, that you are only or mainly concerned with an Egyptian society?

I'm not sure it can be attributed to the religious right in the US. The change from swearwords being based on blasphemy to sexual words is common to most of the English speaking world. It is more likely due to more relaxed attitudes to religion that means that the old curses are no longer considered taboo. It doesn't really matter what the subject is; if there are taboo words in a language, then they will be used as expletives. If it was taboo in a society to talk about mortality, for example, then "death!" might be the equivalent of "fuck!".

God. It's like pulling teeth. Please stop being so bloody vague and cryptic. Stop talking in generalizations and be specific. It is really hard to know what you are talking about (apart from the fact you are making it all up). Of course books survive. I have a shelf full of them. I assume you mean something like: "no books that I think existed before the invention of writing survive". Well, no. Because writing hadn't been invented and so there were no books. If you are trying to imply that there is a forgotten form of writing that pre-dates known writing systems then why didn't these "ancients" leave any texts on stone or metal as many later civilizations did? p.s. Am I to assume from your vague references to Egypt, that you are only or mainly concerned with an Egyptian society?