Leaderboard

Yet another iteration of stuff that had no scientific qualities to begin with, what is the purpose of posting things like this: This seems to be thread number four you have started for this kind of speculative device, so far using names such as hole generator, cellular automata, No battery - electric engine and RedBarron's Gravity Generator. That's about all the math I can find in this thread, I think something more rigours is required.

find the number that both numbers can divide to = 3 3x/3=15/3 x=5 Is this correct

You want to isolate x, using addition, subtraction, multiplication and/or division to do so. Can you do something to the left side so that x appears by itself?

This was in today's BBC, which could potentially alter things maybe:

First read this extract about covectors. http://www.rpi.edu/dept/phys/Courses/PHYS4210/S10/NotesOnVectors.pdf Now look at pages 7 and 8 of this document https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/Numbers/Math/documents/Tensors_TM2002211716.pdf These explains the connection between the dot product of two vectors, one a covector, and tensors in general, including the permeability tensor. See what you can get out of these two documents they are free to download.

The 10 costs you showed add up to about about 33% of the total of $12,000. But the 10 costs represent only .5% of the total number of costs. That means to me that your 10 cost sample is not representative of the total. I do not see how you could get anything that is useful out of these numbers since your sample is not representative of the total. I am not a statistician so maybe there is some "magic" they could do to give you something useful. Good luck.

Then how do they orbit the sun?

Why do the dendrites HAVE to be modified if a sea snails behavior changes? Can you link this particular article? Why does DNA HAVE to hold a record of the dendrites, when they can regenerate; there are other possibilities that aren't the DNA right? Regarding reading up on it, I think it is a lot more helpful for you to first find some reviews of axonal and neuronal growth, the cell signalling components and intracellular pathways involved. I think general information is a lot more helpful for you than very in depth (experimental) articles. The following paste is from my own notes, they the first ones date back 3 or 4 years, when I personally got very interested in the molecular mechanisms of memory, they may be interesting for you (although definitely not all of them, as not all are about neuroscience, either way this may be helpful!). This is an interesting article which shows the basis of LTP quite well. (Kandel, 2012) The molecular biology of memory: cAMP, PKA, CRE, CREB-1, CREB-2, and CPEB http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3514210/ This shows the differences of LTP in different neurons, quite interesting but specific. (Hu et al, 2015) cJun and CREB2 in the Postsynaptic Neuron Contribute to Persistent Long-Term Faciitation at a Behaviorally Relevant Synapse, http://www.jneurosci.org/content/35/1/386.full A quite specific article but made by our own university! (Prickaerts et al, 2014) Improved Long-Term Memory via Enhancing cGMP-PKG Signaling Requires cAMP-PKA Signaling http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4207334/ An introduction into metabrotropic gutamate receptors. (Gerber et al, 2007) Metabotropic glutamate receptors: intracellular signaling pathways http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1471489206001706 An introduction into NMDAR and AMPA involvement in LTP/LTD (Lüscher et al, 2012) NMDA Receptor-Dependent Long-Term Potentiation and Long-Term Depression (LTP/LTD) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3367554/ The rules of spine learning, 15 rules on how spines change. (Kasai et al, 2010) Learning rules and persistence of dendritic spines http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2010.07344.x/full A very good introduction into histone post translational modifications (Bannister et al, 2011) Regulation of chromatin by histone modifications http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3193420/ An indepth article surrounding transcription and the 3D genome (Rajarajan et al, 2016) Spatial genome organization and cognition http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v17/n11/pdf/nrn.2016.124.pdf

I agree with CharonY that he is thin due to the preparation, rather than a medical condition.

I am not sure if you read my earlier post. They have a strongly regimented diet. If they had hyperthyroidism, they would be too sick to compete. It is work to stay lean, not a condition.

http://bayoffundytourism.com/worlds-highest-tides/how-do-the-tides-work/ https://www.google.com/search?q=seiche&oq=seiche&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.1614j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 A seiche (/ˈseɪʃ/ SAYSH) is a standing wave in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water. Seiches and seiche-related phenomena have been observed on lakes, reservoirs, swimming pools, bays, harbours and seas.

We have two possible answers. 1. For a day, the force of gravity increased three times. 2. During the day, the rotation speed of the rotation has increased three times. Record high tide in the Bay of Fundy - 21.6 meters - occurred only once in the entire history of observations, on the night of 4 to 5 October in 1869 under the influence of the cyclone "Saxby Gale". On the night of October 4-5, in 1869, under the influence of the Saxby Gale cyclone, a record rainfall fell over the basins of rivers flowing into the Bay of Fundy (300 mm in one day), due to which waters from the Bay of Fundy poured into the Bay of Maine and increased three times the speed of rotation of the cycle in the Gulf of Maine. -------------------------------------------------- ---- The real-time animation shows how the waters flowing from the Bay of Fundy to the Bay of Man form a gyre, which precession reflects the tidal wave in the direction of the Bay of Fundy. During the flood of the rivers flowing into the Bay of Fundy, the current speed in the north of the Gulf of Maine rises to 20 km / hour, as a result of which the height of the tides reaches 18 meters. https://earth.nullschool.net/?fbclid=IwAR3fDQD_uF0xgVpETpxVzbrv2xxgzOR0UfAKIEFDHAKoC2jzE-Mpu1lIWMs#current/ocean/surface/currents/equirectangular=-65.27,44.29,3000/loc=-66.405,44.310 https://images.app.goo.gl/hAE4F7kyMQ1mhcAF9 Mezen Bay White Sea tide height reaches 10 m. https://earth.nullschool.net/?fbclid=IwAR245zpmdxn7SmOQdJ7qF9HhRn-54AYSZIChWmA6-0A2rXyJ9y2UivmtlZA#current/ocean/surface/currents/equirectangular=42.30,67.95,3000/loc=44.019,65.946 Tides - table. http://www.prilivy.com

I like your thoughts about a limited range of gravity. I think you are right. This is logical and reasonable. If matter has the limiting energy mc ^ 2, this means that a radius of action of gravity cannot be infinite. I also develop a theory of a limited range of gravity and even got the formula that approximately calculates the maximum radius of action of the gravity of a space object by its gravitational parameter. I hope soon to publish some of details of this theory. I am pleased that I am not alone in my ideas. Thank.

I'm going to try this, but I think this will work with my cellular automata. The one I made on Conway Life Forum, under "other cellular automata", it's a post titled quantum computer, and in it, is an X shaped pattern in an explosive or expanding rule, so this matches the Sierpinski fractal (or fractal explosion). There's one pattern with the X, where I extended these horizontal lines, so when the pattern expands, it looks like two of those mounds in RedBarron's spinner. But you can copy and paste a single line horizontally right at the center (there's actually two centers since the center originally was four lit squares), so pick the bottom one and copy the line all the way across the pattern from left edge to right edge. You can then find the 1-dimensional cellular automata (the X is 2d) that is the Sierpinski fractal and use this very long line. Then wrap the edges but a shift of 1 square on the top edge relative to the bottom, so it's torus wrapping but a shift of one. Then I'll have to program or use a fractal video compression to record it in a video. The shift before always created a line that shot across the screen almost instantly in the blinking squares. But if you zoom out and alternate the wrapping from a torus to a torus of shift of one square, ie alternate the type of wrapping between a plain torus and a shift of square top to bottom like in pac-man, a line will constantly be shooting across the screen. But the edge is going to be like RedBarron's device, it's going to suck pixels into the line, like a cloud, so the line should start to gyrate and wiggle like a worm, and I believe it could be used as an intelligence, and the reason it would work is that in any video recording there's shared errors that create ghostly pixels on the edge, but since these all align, the explosive rule in 2d, taking a long line into a 1d sierpinski fractal, and recording with fractal image, it should show up. It's the clockwise X pattern in the first post on that forum, and notice 4 "flags" on the 4 edges of the large square that stick out, ie the flags stick out from the large center area on the horizontal and vertical edges of the large center thing, there are 4 small flag looking things that I have on it. Well you can draw a line from a flag on the left edge of the center large square out all the way to the length of one of the 4 diagonal arms, but then keep drawing again by that same distance, and do the same, draw a line from the right flag. When it executes, you have a bowed out thing going out beyond the 4 arms, and instead of a spinner at the center, it's now a see-saw. I let it expand until the top and bottom dark V's, it makes a general X shape the whole thing but you want to still have some of the black V, so a general X-shape, and then copy and paste a single long horizontal line after that pattern expands for a while. A 1-d cellular automata grows out in a V-shape from a single line of light and dark squares at the start, but I'm thinking to wrap the copied line to keep it a single line (the copied line from the ---2d---- automata and into a 1d automata that's the 1d sierpinski generator), ie it's just a blinking single line, but alternating the type of edge wrapping every so often, so that when you zoom out the straight line appears to bend and move from the sucking effect of Red Barron device (here it's shared errors and ordered dithering in the edge pixels of fractal video compression, a lossy form of video compression) that should collectively the outside ghostly pixels to make it appear upon zooming out in Golly, that the line is snaking through a cloud endowed with its own intelligence.

//"... but I would not want to publish it, since it has not yet passed the test of time, in my understanding."// If you stick to classical physics, in any case you will not accept an alternative theory. I am a realist and I understand that the best proof of any theory is its practical use. That is what I try to do now in my home laboratory. I already have some interesting results. Of course, yes. You see our spacecraft without problems go into planetary orbits. Ok, I am ready to provide here a formula that I have already published on the Internet - the calculation of the average distance from the Earth to the Sun. This formula is close to the formula that calculates the radius of the gravitational action of any planet, according to the theory that I develop: where µ is the Earth's gravitational parameter (the geocentric gravitational constant), α-1 ≈ 137.04 is the fine-structure constant, C = 1 m/s is a matching coefficient. The logic by which I got this formula is not quite physical. This logic is more philosophical. Are you ready to accept philosophical logic in a physical forum? P.S. I will be out of the Internet for several days, so I will not be able to answer questions here. Sorry.

After the big bang everything up to now is traveling faster then the speed of light with regard to expansion of the Universe. You don't know what you are talking about as that is not part of the current model. Also google shape of the Universe. Discovered it was disk shaped many years ago so again you don't know what you are talking about. A gravitational lens is hardly the other side of a black hole and other article questionable. I saw the Universe as disk shaped over 40 years ago (again do your own research as as discovered as disk shaped maybe 10 years ago). I also told people there was a black hole at the center of all galaxies way before it was discovered. I was telling my Nephew who has a PHd in Astrophysics some stuff a few years ago and he blurted out it was just discovered and was so new it wasn't even in print yet. My doctor brother was a witness. How could i know these things? There is much in the Universe that you are unaware of...go read another book...lol! Edit: Also apparently you don't recognize Einsteins parallel Universe theory and Theory of relativity

I know that everything traveling faster than the speed of light since the big bang is not part of the model. You said speed of light was!?!? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe I googled and found 5 pages!?!!? You obviously are not even reading my posts or your reading comprehension is really bad! Obviously you didn't google, "shape of the Universe," which makes you a troll and a waste of my time! Later...or not!

lol...I shouldn't have looked back here...but did! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe the above link was at top of list of google search with 5 more pages so go look yourself. You should already know the the Universe is disk shaped as was discovered years ago. I never said black holes caused the Universe to expand (reading comprehension again?!?!?). I said they were caused by the expanding universe and are necessary. You my friend are obviously the one that hasn't a clue and suspect my writing way over your head and obviously beyond your undersatnding! edit: won't let me post anymore today. You guys hate Americans huh! click link above and go down to #2 on shape: this it what you see; Flat (no curvature), open (negative curvature), or closed (positive curvature) that is a disk...lol! There are 5 freakin pages of links beside the one I gave you (which was at top of list) so can't understand simple English or too lazy to research yourself or just like being a troll Mod. I've been a member of many sites and have never expeienced a mod like you...maybe you just a kid!

"Blessed is he who believes". Do not substitute physics for mathematics. Any matter has some limiting resource, which we call "energy" (or "mass"). Therefore, if matter creates a gravitational field, then it cannot be infinite. I am sure that you make a mistake by comparing gravity with electromagnetic waves (or light), since we can screen electromagnetic waves, but gravity cannot. For example, according to the theory that I develop, the gravitational fields of the big planets of the Solar system reach the Sun. Therefore, the orbits of these planets are close to a circle. But the gravitational fields of small objects of the Solar system (asteroids, plutoids, and also Mercury) do not reach the Sun. Therefore, their orbits have large eccentricities. I derived the exact formula for calculating the radius of the gravitational action of any planet, but I would not want to publish it, since it has not yet passed the test of time, in my understanding.