Strange

This sounds like the sort of thing we used to make up at school when we compared solar systems to atoms. But we now know that atoms are nothing like that: they don't consist of electrons orbiting a central nucleus so the analogy just doesn't work. While true, that is also completely useless. The theories we had in the past were solidly based on what we knew then. The theories we have know are based on current knowledge. Speculating about future unknowns is not science. And, given the lack of detail, not even science fiction. Also, while our theories will almost certainly be adjusted in future, it is very unlikely they will be shown to be completely wrong. There are almost no instances of that in science. The only two I can think of are phlogiston and the steady state universe. Everything else has been a progressive refinement of our understanding.

I wonder what the best thing is to insulate a hoax? Maybe, to borrow Churchill's words you should put it in a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. Or get yourself a tinfoil hat to insulate yourself from reality. You probably just need to change the batteries.

There is no such thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_mercury

What do you mean, it is all you can do? Of course it isn't. You can read the file one line at a time, which would be more appropriate. You could even read it one byte at a time, if you wanted to. You do talk nonsense sometimes.

Whatever the reason, it is not a limitation in Python. (And it is irrelevant, as the file needs to be processed one line at a time, anyway.)

As I said: If you read the entire file, it is going to be limited by available (virtual) memory - Python does not have any hard limits

That is not a limitation of Python.

Citation needed.

If you read one line at a time, it doesn't matter how big the file is. If you read the entire file, it is going to be limited by available (virtual) memory - I don't think Python has any hard limits.

There is absolutely nothing in GR to suggest that there is a limit to the mass of black holes. There is no evidence for the existence of white holes. Hawking radiation is not caused by particles falling into the black hole.

Let's hope he doesn't live in a country like the USA where he could easily get hold of a gun and make a start on his mission.

Energy of what?

It would be used as proof of God by those who believe in Her and proof of the non-existence of God by those who don't believe in Him. The rest of us would just say, "Meh". I would say, "Meh".

Where does h appear in Maxwell's equations, or any other classical theory? Energy of what?

You presumably know what you are trying to say. I don't think anyone else does. If they are moving, then I would say they are in different frames of reference. We are in frame S, the moving object is in frame S'. Who don't?

He says: "I would like to obtain an other textfile without the numerical lines" Seemed pretty clear to me. But let's see. That would do it. The first thing I do on a new Windows machine is install cygwin!

This seems to work #!/usr/bin/python import re import sys if len(sys.argv) != 2: print("Missing file name argument") sys.exit(1) filename = sys.argv[1] # Pattern to match lines that don't begin with a number pat = re.compile('^[^0-9]') for line in open(filename): m = pat.match(line) if (m): print(line), For Python 3, the print line will need to change to: print(line, end="") Because that is how awk does it? Actually, from the short example given, it might just be enough to check if the first character is 'f' ...

It is very unlcear what you are trying to say. If you are talking about special relativity then you shoudl really be talking about intertial frames. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference It is well know that length contraction occurs in a frame of reference that is moving relative to an obsever. I don't understand what you mean by "it is in our frame". What is in our frame? It is also confusing because you started talking about a stationary frame of reference and then introduce a moving frame and then an accelerating one. That would be the Lorentz transform. However, when you start talking about relativity of simultaneity and acceleration, then things start getting more complex. And that is where you seem to getting confused (or not explaining yourself clearly). You seem to be talking about a variant of the spaceship paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_spaceship_paradox

Use awk instead. awk "/^[^0-9]/" textfile Both sensei and fiveworlds seem to have missed the point of the question. In fiveworld's example the "print" line needs to be replaced with something like: if (<regular expression to find lines not starting with number): print (I am not familiar enough with python to write that off the top of my head.) Also, I have no idea why he is printing out (invalid) HTML

If it is accelerating, then it is not a motionless frame as described in the OP. I really have no idea what you are trying to say or ask. (Are you asking a question? Or stating a fact?)

I'm fairly sure I still have a copy on the shelf somewhere ...

Like propping up a wonky table leg ?

What are these 18 particle? I can only find 17: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle#/media/File:Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg What are the 6 types? What do you mean by "satellites"? Why would anyone accept these assumptions when you provide no justification for them. (And they appear to be contradicted by actual evidence.)

And then spend your entire career studying the details of one step of a single reaction!

But you do have time to copy and paste type reams of false information from the standard creationist sources.