Strange

Sunflowers always develop their seeds in the same pattern (no surprises there; it is defined by their genetics). But note that it is only approximately a fibonacci sequence. Also there are other plants which do not organise there seeds in this sort of pattern. So this doesn't really tell us anything about the world. And it still has nothing to do with infinity. Maths deals with real numbers and well as other more complex structures, not just integers.

That is just ridiculous. You are claiming that all astronomers are liars. One problem is that you are relying on a presentation with very brief notes rather than a document (ideally a scientific paper) with detailed information. Page 15 says that the stars near the sun have slightly different velocities (a few tens of km/s). From the diagram, it would appear that these small differences are direction as well as speed. However, it also says that they orbit the galactic centre at 230 km/s. So the stars around the sun all effectively orbit at the same speed. So this tells you little about stars in general and nothing about the presence of stars between the arms. So, every single source confirms that there are stars between the arms. You are unable to provide any references stating that there not stars between the arms. Therefore I think we can safely conclude that there are stars between the arms. This is proof that either you don't understand what you read or you are deliberately and dishonestly misrepresenting it. It is right on the edge of the arm. Either is is just leaving (again?) or it is just entering (again?).

Nice example of "begging the question". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Although there is a (negative) correlation: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000238

For what species?

Then you will need to study biology. Because they are measuring similarity in different ways.

Dark matter is distributed roughly spherically around that galaxy with increasing density towards the centre. Mordred did NOT say that there was more dark matter in the disk; he said it had a significant influence on the disk. Gravity. This causes it to be denser at the centre than at the edges. DENSITY. I have given you a link to a detailed explanation already. Here it is again: http://cdms.berkeley.edu/Education/DMpages/FAQ/question36.html PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE ASKING THE SAME QUESTION AGAIN. It affects orbital velocity in roughly the same way everywhere. Please provide some evidence to support your claim that it has a "different influence on each galaxy section".

Of course. But it isn't experiencing acceleration.

Can you show why that is? And, if so, why focus on the electron neutrino, when a particular particle will only be in that state for a portion of the time? Neutrinos have been considered as possible dark matter and ruled out (mainly because of their velocity, I think).

And that is true (unless they are in free fall).

You have a habit of throwing together a jumble of apparently unrelated concepts. None of the above have anything to do with length contraction. Furthermore, dark matter cannot be baryonic (by definition) and doesn't appear to involve the strong or weak interactions. Relativistic mass is the usual term (not "acceleration mass" because it is not due to acceleration, but relative velocity). But many people don't like the concept because it can be so misleading. Electron neutrinos are one type of neutrino. You know neutrinos oscillate between the three types?

As this is a science forum, please provide some concrete evidence for this "metaphysical language" (and, perhaps, "natural math"). And by evidence, I don't mean your personal (mis)understandings of existing texts. I mean something that would at least be considered for publication in a suitable journal (e.g. in the field of historical linguistics). Please explain exactly what this process is, so we see how it could be beneficial. (Note: this confirms that you should be able to define these "metaphysical processes" quite precisely - otherwise how could computers be programmed to use them.) Perhaps you could explain how this could be implemented on a computer and how it would aid in the development of AI? Do you have any evidence that either of those positions are true? Or even that they are held by anyone? There is an ongoing debate as to whether math is invented or discovered, but it isn't clear if that is the same thing. What do you think?

By "random" I assume you mean that they are not in the same plane as the disk? (Which is obviously so because they are not in the disk.) Why would dark matter be releavnt to that? All it affects is the orbital speed, not the angle of the orbit. Newton's law obviously IS relevant because it is how we know dark matter exists.

So we have, through the application of science and technology, outgrown the primitive "metaphysical" natural-philosophy of the past. That is a good thing, surely.

Good point. I overlooked the fact that it is a 16 bit offset to a (presumably) 32 bit address. Should we also consider that the offset value might be in BCD?

How about: "There are many stars that are also in-between the spiral arms, but they tend to be the dimmer stars (G, K, M-type stars). Long-lived stars will move in and out of the spiral arms as they orbit the galaxy." http://www.astronomynotes.com/ismnotes/s8.htm Or: "It should be emphasized that there are almost as many stars between the spiral arms as in the spiral arms." http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/milkyway.html Or: "The apparent voids between spiral arms are actually full of dimmer, redder, and less massive stars like Sol." http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/spi-disk.htm Or: "The density of stars between the spiral arms is about the same as it is along the spiral arms." https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zoZLBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA65&ots=3pRpF_hA6k&dq=stars%20between%20the%20spiral%20arms&pg=PA65#v=onepage&q=stars%20between%20the%20spiral%20arms OK. Your turn to provide some evidence that there are no stars between the arms. And note that neither "I don't believe it"nor "it doesn't look like it" count as evidence.

Maybe. Although, the offset is likely to be scaled to match the addressing of the base register. (And the original quote implies byte addressing for both). And as the OP is already confused by the simple case ...

Do you think that there is any science that disgarees with this mind-numbingly obvous conclusion? Substances do not react at random. Why haven't you understood this yet? The only reason you get a negative reaction is because you mix this sort of idiotic statement with naive expressions of the obvious (as if it was new). No one is denying this. Which is what makes your posts so bizarre: you seem to be saying that we should accept standard mainstream science. Well, surprise: we do.

You are missing the obvious concusion of "alien assassin". I can only assume that this is because you are a paid stooge (one of the three paid stooges?) of the Lizard Overlords (praise be upon them). Really? I mean, really??

It doesn't make any difference whether you consider the offsets as signed or unsigned - because you are doing modulo arithmetic. For example, the offset might be #0xffffffff - now you could interpret this as "-1" and thefore subtract 1 from the base addres. On the other hand, you could cosider this as the largest possible positive value: but when this is added to the base address it "wraps round" and ends up addressing the memory address one before the base address - exactly the same as if you had subtracted 1. No: you can address +/- 32768 bytes using 16 bits. In other words, the 16 bit register can "point to" any location which is 32768 bytes above or below the base address.

None of your statements in this thread have been defensible. They are entirely meaningless. (The same is true of many, if not all, of your other threads.)

You are imposing some meaning to the equation being written in a particular way, where there is no meaning. For example: 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 is exactly the same as: 3 = 1 + 1 + 1 The symbol '=' signifies equality; it makes no difference what is on the left or the right. There is no ordering or change implied by the symbol. It merely states that what is written on one side is the same as what is written on the other side. For example: "0.25 = 1/4" or "0.999... = 1" simply means that those are two different notations for writing the same thing.

Obviously an alien appendage. (I am only saying that to keep the reality of Our Lizard Overlords hidden.) Your welcome.

That confused me for a while, but I think you are right.

No. The problem is purely your ludicrous claims. If even you are not going to stand by the things you say, why say them? And why should anyone else give them any consideration if you can't be bothered to take them seriously? You have very clearly demonstrated (in this thread and several others) that there is no reason for anyone to take your beliefs seriously.