pzkpfw

How about you draw a diagram of what you expect to happen with your combination of filter and diaphragm?

This whole 5 laser thing still seems like a pointless diversion, as I think Dalo has misunderstood post #2 (which he seemed to accept). Dalo, the diagram showed how light from one point on the source travels multiple paths to the lens. So the diaphram blocks some of the light from points on the source, but not all. Note how in post #2 the diaphram does not cut off the head of the stick figure; just some of the light from the head. I've slightly expanded the diagram, possibly wasting my time. Your five lasers do not replicate what happens for general photo taking, as we don't get single sources of light from the source we are photographing. e.g. there won't be a single ray of light from the head of the stick figure to the lens.

Dalo, do you understand that using 5 laser beams does not replicate viewing 5 points on some object? That is; say you are looking at a house through some lens and you place lasers on the left, half-way to left, middle, half-way to the right, and right sides of the house ... all pointing direct to you through your lens. If the aperture were closed a bit so the left and right lasers were not visible to you, do you expect the left and right of the house to also not be visible?

Actually that wasn't obvious from the bit where you wrote "Significant majority of stars that you see don't exist anymore" (given the context of the OP (the post and the poster), naked eye visibility seemed implied to me), and (given that implication) the "billions" bit was exactly what I was gently correcting.

I thought most unaided-human-eye-visible stars were not actually all that far away. As in ... https://xkcd.com/1342/ (Edit: I once read, but can't quickly find a reference, that any star unaided-visible is pretty much within the milky way, which is only about 100,000 light years across.) (I'm also discounting galaxies that are visible.)

I'm not detecting any science here.

Surely it's just showing the same equation using both polar and cartesian coordinates, and the "..." is shorthand for the first bit? As in: [ Result in Polar coordinates equation1 in Cartesian coordinates ... = equation2 ] The "... = equation2" is short for "equation1 = equation2", isn't it?

Rounding what? Your implication was that no circle could have a circumference of an integer number of units. That's wrong. That the speed of light can be expressed in metres per some unit of time, and metres were previously (inaccurately) linked to something that was part of almost a circle, does not produce the relationship you seem to be seeing.

That isn't true. The circumference of a circle, in some arbitrary unit, could easily be an integer multiple of those units. (What that tells us about the radius of that circle is then something else). Just take (for example) a piece of string exactly 43,744,532 yards long. Make a circle of it. Or a piece of string exactly 40 inches long. Make a circle of it.

The answer is still "no". A nuclear bomb is no more "free energy" than a block of wood you burn by lighting it with a match.

You seem to have the common idea that empty space already existed and the BB was like an "explosion" that occurred somewhere in that space. That's not the current scientific understanding. Our space and time are the result of the BB, which was more of an expansion of everything away from everything else (in general). There is no "outside" as such.

Having seen "rainbows" from the beveled edges of the glass doors at my office, I'd point out that Prisms can be made of simple glass. That is, it's not the material that separates the colours, it's the shape (allowing the different refraction of different frequencies to produce the effect). Add to that, that since passing a single pure colour into a prism will get just that same colour back out, I'm not seeing any validity to the idea that the Prisim itself is what creates the colours. Nice pictures here: http://www.schoolphysics.co.uk/age11-14/Light/text/Prisms_and_colour/index.html

A motorcycling forum I read has a policy where if someone makes an "I'm leaving" post, they immediately get banned. (Their posts don't get deleted.) The policy works.

If you're going to completely redefine all of math, you'll never get anywhere. You need to be consistent, too. You wrote 0 = ((0z1)/1) * (1/(0z2)) = 0 * 1 = (0z1) * 1 = 01 = ((0z1)/1) * (1/(0z2)) = 0 * 1 = (0z2) * 1 = 1 And then go to: 0 = 0 * 1 = 01 = 1 * 1 = 1 The bit I highlighted in red changes. That's nuts. One moment you have 1 = 0 * 1, the next you have 1 = 1 * 1. There is no consistency to your "math".

No. Unless you have re-defined what "=" means, you show that 0 = 1. Say we have: 1 + 1 + 1 = 2 + 1 = 3 Each of the parts is equal to all the others. We can remove the middle part and still be accurate: 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 Taking your equations: 0 = ((0z1)/1) * (1/(0z2)) = 0 * 1 = (0z1) * 1 = 01 = ((0z1)/1) * (1/(0z2)) = 0 * 1 = (0z2) * 1 = 1 We should be able to remove the wiggildybop bits and the other parts that are equal should still be equal: 0 = 0 * 1 = 01 = 0 * 1 = 1 So, you have both 0 and 1 equal to 0 * 1. If 0 and 1 both equal 0 * 1, then you imply 0 equals 1. You're not explaining this well.

This seems to imply 0 = 1 Is that useful?

Where did you get the 4 and 7 from? (You picked 5 arbitrary numbers, not three). That should be: 1 * (2 + 3) = 1 * 2 + 1 * 3 From: a * (b + c) = a * b + a * c You start with: 1*(2+3), so (your three numbers) a=1, b=2 and c=3. So on the right is: a*b + a*c = 1*2 + 1*3 (not picking another two random numbers) e.g. today is October 3rd, 2017 for me, so I'll say a=3, b=10, c=17 left = a * (b + c) = 3 * (10 + 17) = 3 * 27 = 81 right = a * b + a * c = 3 * 10 + 3 * 17 = 30 + 51 = 81

There's film from one mission (16? I forget) where an astronaut walks close to the flag and it does move a little - towards him, thought to be the effect of static electricity. In air, the strength of that wouldn't have been enough to move the flag. And of course all the other movement near the flag where it doesn't move at all, is another good indication of the lack of air. This stuff ("but the intensity of the wave suggest that the flag was flapping on the surface of the earth in a studio that was staging the lunar landing") is just baseless assertion. Go make a fake landing studio, try to replicate the films! It's not rocket science ...

You never mention if your PC has WiFi capabilities. May be a daft thing to point out, but still, ...

(Banned or suspended from: physicsforums.com https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-modern-astronomy-have-a-problem.929551/ )

And how do you relate that to the P=NP in your thread title?

Gosh, that puddle thinks its' pothole is really special. It's just the right shape.

Where did you get the Hydrogen? You'd need a lot of solar panels or wind turbines (or whatever) to produce it.

Seems to me that step 8, in practice, means this can't be more efficient than any other given method. Has this method ever been programmed, as opposed to implemented by a human who will tend to use heuristics? (Especially in step 8).