Strange

What? If one body gains energy (I assume you are referring to kinetic energy) then another must lose it. (This is how gravitational slingshots work.) If you are claiming that is not the case, then it is up to you to tell us where the energy comes from. You can't invent a situation and then expect other people to explain it to you.

By the time we are able to send people to Mars, the data rate will be higher. What data rate do you believe is required? And why? It is incomprehensible and not funny. What evidence do you have that higher data rates can be achieved with lasers than current technology (X- and Ka-band)? Why is the laser oscillating instead of being consistently aimed? How many real high-speed communication systems have you worked on? Are you familiar with information theory?

Is it? Perhaps you can explain how taking 100 times more space to store data is "compression"? What is your compression algorithm? Is it it lossless or lossy How does it compare with other compression algorithms? What data sources have you tested it with?

Apart from the fact that this is nonsense, one of the strengths of nuclear subs is keeping their location secret. Sharing communication technology would destroy that key advantage.

Probably. Certainly the total energy before and after is the same. Exactly how the energy is distributed between the two planets, the star and anything else can't be calculated without more information. No. Because they are held together by electromagnetic and gravitational forces. Expansion only happens on the scale of galactic clusters and above.

Same kind of device as what? We can already do that? You may have missed the last few decades, but there have been robots on the surface, spacecraft in orbit and we have returned vast amounts of data about Mars. What for? Where are these lasers and what are they for? How did you estimate this? Aim what? At what target? And what is the "thing" that is oscillating? And why? What do cats and rabbits have to do with it?

What is "chatplace"? If it is imaginary, how are you building it? What "symbols" are you talking about? The Latin alphabet? ASCII? Unicode? What "images" are you talking about? 4K what? Unicode can represent over 1 million characters using 20 bits. You are representing 20K characters using 400 bits each (assuming 1 bit pixels). Over 100 times less efficient. So, 8 MB to store 20K characters. Not very efficient. What is the relevance of Mars? What is the relevance of a 7x7 laser array? You mean it was once worse than this? How is a storage system for characters supposed to generate power? What are all these memory devices being used for? You could start with a sane idea, instead. In summary: I have absolutely no idea what you are jabbering on about. Maybe you should start from the beginning and say what you are truing to achieve.

So things that go out of fashion in philosophy are false? Until they come into fashion again, then they become true again? That doesn't sound very logical. Or, perhaps you mean, some philosophers are wrong therefore the ,material world exists? That is worse, it is a tautology. (But I am not claiming that the material world does not exist, just that you have no way of knowing that. It is pure, unsubstantiated belief.)

How do you know that? The only information you have is from your brain. So you can't have any direct knowledge of that "independent reality" and so you can'y know it exists; you just know that your brain tells you it exists. (Never mind the problems with what "know" means, how you know you have a brain to tell you these things, how you know "you" are you, etc. Descartes made it sounds so easy...)

I can't help feeling that the last thing countries would do is cooperate on communication/control of their nuclear weapons. It rather defeats the object.

Note that Visual Studio Express has been replaced by the Community Edition of Visual Studio

! Moderator Note No. That is not how it works. The rules you agreed to when you joined said that you need to present the information on the forum. ! Moderator Note Moved to speculations.

I don't think anyone is going to provide a complete programming course on the forum. https://www.google.com/search?q=assembler+programming+tutorial If you have any specific questions, feel free to come back and ask.

I don't think anyone is going to provide a programming course on the forum. https://www.google.com/search?q=visual+studio+c%23+tutorial If you have any specific questions, feel free to come back and ask. (But, no, it isn't necessary to learn C or C++ first; that will just cause confusion.)

30 cm If we can’t speak about photons then we can’t speak about tunnelling

Or, as the boy in The Matrix (nearly) said: "There is no coin."

The probability of tunnelling falls very rapidly with distance, which is why all the photons a receives gets have travelled through the air to get there. If you could (somehow) rely on only tunnelled photons, then the signal would be attenuated to zero.

! Moderator Note This is not the correct forum to resuscitate non-mainstream theories.

Interesting points (plus, the whole correlation vs causation thing needs to be considered). So now I’m wondering if Moreno was aware of studies like this, or just relying on some gut feeling about how people think ...

There is an online editor that lets you try things out, and has buttons for common functions: https://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php Try x \in \mathbb{I} [math]x \in \mathbb{I}[/math] Apart from that, there are various online guides (some linked in that other thread, I think.)

Yes. (Although, as mass can't "disappear", the curvature just follows the mass wherever it goes.) Spacetime curvature is [caused by] the presence of mass-energy. Remove one and the other goes as well.

You can. Enclose it in math tags: [ math]x^2[/ math] -> [math]x^2[/math] (note that there is a bug in the software so the generated text doesn't appear until the page is refreshed) More info here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/108127-typesetting-equations-with-latex-updated/

Maybe you could try using Google Translate instead of writing in English, because I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Bizarrely enough, it almost sounds like you have stumbled on something close to the right answer. Electron orbitals are rather like the standing waves you get in a pool, for example, when the wavelength is an exact multiple of the length of the pool.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations