Strange

You might want to look at these lectures by Richard Feynman. He explains the reflection and refraction of light in terms of photon/electron interaction. The full theory is called Quantum Electrodynamics and this is a non-technical description of it. http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

If they gave medals for non sequiturs, you would get Gold every time.

So what? What does that have to do with the existence of Alexander the Great? Do you have any evidence that all the historical evidence is faked?

So...?

That forum doesn't appear to say he didn't exist (also, the name of the website makes me doubtful of its credibility). Alexander the Great is a well documented historical figure. For example, there are many cities named after him (Alexandria, etc.). http://www.biography.com/people/alexander-the-great-9180468

Any evidence for that? Or just another ad-hoc guess to shore up a failed idea? Without the math, I don't believe it works.

Is that a reply to "And what does "but a better number is .00083985429 AMU" mean? If so, it is wrong. The sum of the electron and positron masses is 0.0010971598 (based on the Particle Data Group figures). Pretty pictures but without the math, I don't believe it works.

Close, but no banana. Weight of H atom: 1.007825 Weight of Neutron: 1.008664916 Delta: 0.000839916 H / Delta: 1199.9116578323 N / Delta: 1200.9116578323 P / Delta: 1199.2585768099 Using your less accurate numbers gives a result even further from what you claim. And what does "but a better number is .00083985429 AMU" mean? It almost sounds like you have made it up to give the right answer... None of the ratios appear to be exact or have any physical meaning. Please show the math to support this. And show that it applies to atoms with large numbers of protons, such as lead and uranium. Here's one: you're wrong.

Why does it seem like that?

If you think of it from the perspective of the planet, the spacecraft arrives and leaves at the same speed. However, the planet is moving (in its orbit) and so, from a stationary point of view, the spacecraft is moving faster when it leaves. And the planet is moving ever so slightly slower. So the kinetic energy comes from the planet. Wikipedia has a good explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist#Explanation

I am hugely impressed by the patience shown by some very knowledgeable people on this and other forums when talking to people who can only be described as idiots.

It wasn't my question. You were asked what your model would predict the altitude of a geosynchronous orbit. Altitude would be a number of meters, for example. If you cannot answer the question, just say so.

That is just because gravity pulls down. "Down" means towards the center of the Earth. Turn the cup upside down and the water falls to Earth. The oceans are effectively sitting in large bowls (which are the right way up) so they stay where they are. No, because "down" is defined by the pull of gravity. Gravity always pulls towards the center of the Earth. Therefore, wherever you are, it pulls you down towards the ground. No. That is 9.8 m/s2 (i.e. 9.8 meters per second per second). In other words, acceleration not velocity.

2Pi radians (360 degrees) is not a velocity, not even an angular velocity. Neither is it an altitude, which is what you were asked for. (And your "derivation" makes no sense.)

The trouble is, you still have a net positive charge in the nucleus. So you need to explain how the protons stay together given the electrostatic repulsion. I don't think so. Using the values from the Particle Data Group: Neutron mass: 1.008664916 Proton mass: 1.0072764668 Difference (delta): 0.0013884492 Proton/delta: 725.4687283608 Not exactly 'evenly divisible". But maybe you are thinking that looks close to the mass of an electron? Nope. It is 1.3224485911 times the mass of the electron. I can't imagine why.

The important thing to learn are the principles of programming (structured design, etc.) These are transferable skills. You might not have used a given language before (or have forgotten it) but you should be able to pick it up fairly quickly. Especially if you have some experience with a range of languages with different syntax and styles (procedural, declarative, functional, etc).

You might be interested in this: Gravitoelectromagnetism: A Brief Review http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311030v2

The resistance is quite strongly temperature (and, therefore, voltage x current) dependent. You may not even measure the same resistance for a given voltage at different times. That is a wrong (and useless) definition of Ohm's law. A better definition is that on Wikipedia: Ohm's law states that the current through a conductor between two points is directly proportional to the potential difference across the two points. Introducing the constant of proportionality, the resistance, one arrives at the usual mathematical equation that describes this relationship: I = V/R. (emphasis added) If R is not constant then it isn't obeying Ohm's law. All you are saying is that (for some devices) a fixed voltage produces a fixed current. But, of course, even that isn't true for all components.

There is a lot of speculation around this, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes#Cosmological_natural_selection And: http://www.insidescience.org/content/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe/566

Can you explain how you calculate that based on a sample size of 1. This analolgy would be better if it was one marksman (our current sample size). And he may not be a marksman. He may not even be armed. Maybe he doesn't exist. So what were the odds, again?

Once?

So, looking at the manual, when you say "Amp hole" are you referring to having the leads plugged into one of the sockets for measuring current? Did you also have the knob turned to the right settting. You seems to get such random "it's wrong no it's right now" readings, that I suspect user error... So, can you tell us what the battery voltage in your circuit is? And what currents you calculate? And what currents you measure? Or is it a secret?

Right. So just numerology then. You say, "isn't it amazing that this process gives the right answer." No, not when you choose a fudge factor to give the answer you want. Yes, but as I said, it is very hard to follow the code. So what I don't understand here, is that you are generating a single energy (and, therefore, wavelength) from your electron calculation. But the red-shift of galaxies depends on two wavelengths: the original and the shifted. How does this relate to your electron calculation? OK. I have just had a look at your first post again. It looks like you use the 'z' calculation to work out a velocity for the electron and you find this comes to the velocity you started with. That doesn't seem in the least bit surprising as you have fudged the velocity corresponding to the energy level in step 1. It is like one of those mathematical tricks: "think of a number, now multiply by ... take away the number you first thought of ... your number was ... !!"

You leap, in a series of non-sequiturs from "less likely" to "not possible" to "creation" to "therefore god!". At no point is evidence or logic involved.

Which, of course, wouldn't need a "creator".