Ghideon

How is your idea falsified*? Please describe an observation and an outcome that would show your idea to be wrong. *) The idea is obviously already falsified; just check answers above. I'm interested in OP's view on the matter.

Why did you tell me in writing instead of showing me? Ok. I don't think I need telepathic skills to see that you misunderstood the video.

Instantaneous telepathic contact does not, and cannot, exist according to established theories of relativity. Relativity of time makes sense, instantaneous telepathic contact does not*. What you describe is not relativity, at least not a prediction of any established scientific theory about relativity ( for instance Special Relativity). *) In science that is. In science fiction my opinion may be different.

Is this a response in the context of my post above? (I suspect you have misunderstood what encoding is)

The explanation is in clear text in your screen shot. Below it is highlighted for you. So the links does not work; I do not know if they goes to a page displaying anything meaningful. (Note: I have pointed out this several times in the past) Note 2:Some links may give other errors such as this.

Source: [math]\begin{displaymath} T=\sum_{ \mathclap{\substack{i_1,\ldots,i_n=1 \\ j_1,\ldots,j_m=1}}}^d T_{j_1,\ldots,j_m}^{i_1,\ldots,i_n} E_{i_1,\ldots,i_n}^{j_1,\ldots,j_m} \end{displaymath}[/math] [math]\begin{displaymath} T=\sum_{ i_1,\ldots,i_n,j_1,\ldots,j_m=1}^d \; T_{j_1,\ldots,j_m}^{i_1,\ldots,i_n} E_{i_1,\ldots,i_n}^{j_1,\ldots,j_m} \end{displaymath[/math] Source: \begin{displaymath} T=\sum_{ i_1,\ldots,i_n,j_1,\ldots,j_m=1}^d \; T_{j_1,\ldots,j_m}^{i_1,\ldots,i_n} E_{i_1,\ldots,i_n}^{j_1,\ldots,j_m} \end{displaymath} Test result: [math]\begin{displaymath} T=\sum_{ i_1,\ldots,i_n,j_1,\ldots,j_m=1}^d \; T_{j_1,\ldots,j_m}^{i_1,\ldots,i_n} E_{i_1,\ldots,i_n}^{j_1,\ldots,j_m} \end{displaymath}[/math] Expected result: (I got curious about @joigus test... wanted to learn)

That seems a very counter intuitive claim from an information perspective. In addition to other arguments here is an example (based on John Cuthbert's comment) Origo in a three dimensional coordinate system is one point identified by 0,0,0 0,0,0 can be represented as a ascii string in binary form, note that this is one number: 0011000000101100001100000010110000110000. Convert the one binary number to decimal, obviously resulting in one number: 206899784752. One number, several numbers or other information is a matter of choosing a suitable encoding. Hope this helps.

That is a reasonable conclusion when a conjecture, an idea or similar is a failure. (Note, you are probably wasting time posting the links, all of them have errors or needs additional efforts.)

As expected your methods and ideas unfortunately failed the challenge. The ideas does not work at all, but it is good that you tested so that you see it for yourself. That is good, those acknowledgements may be the first step. Maybe you begin to see where the real issue is? Yes, as part of my profession I need to know several different programs, frameworks and programming languages. But the software is not relevant to your issues, do you begin to see why? If you objectively analyse your issues and struggling and its connection to how RSA and similar encryption actually work I think the root cause of your problems will be obvious. I have already tried to explain (several times) but you may learn more from discovering it for yourself. Sorry, I'm not interested in yet another repetition in those numbers. I have no clue what that is supposed to mean. (Note: 256485531 is not a prime number and also not a semi prime)

Your knowledge seems correct @joigus. (Italics by me) Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_electricity#Cosmic_radiation

Can you clarify that sentence? I do not see a connection to pervious posts in the thread.

No. You are mixing things up. You have linked to work from Benedikt Bitterli that works with graphics research on new algorithms and representations of geometry and appearance at Nvidia. https://benedikt-bitterli.me/femto.html. It is completely virtual* as far as I can tell, no physical femto cameras are used. No support of aether will be found there. *) And also quite interesting if ray tracing, algorithms and physically based rendering is your thing.

If the "wow-signal" is the best they came up with having such formidable powers then I'm very unimpressed. I'll wait for something more intelligent to be communicated before investing more time in their signals.

They are not mistreated, at least not around where I'm located, they just fell out of fashion together with for instance phlogistonism.

How? The intensity, as far as I know, is due to the construction of the measurement equipment, not properties of the source of the signal.

Maybe it is a good thing that you begin to find out for our self that your ideas regarding factorisation of semiprimes does not work?

I think you have misinterpreted the representation of the signal's intensity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2010/05/28/126510251/aliens-found-in-ohio-the-wow-signal

I see no question @trevorjohnson32. What is it you wish to discuss? (The post does not look like na attempt at describing established physics, maybe it's part of a work of fiction?)

You could try to have matching parentheses? There seems to be unbalanced "(" and ")" in the statement:

Thanks for the answer. (Bold by me). As far as I can tell experimental observation of non-locality is not part of the motivation of the prize*, I do not understand the question, sorry. I do not see the reference I asked for so I assume it's your personal interpretations. *) Also, it is not part of the scientific background I linked to.

I can't find support for that in official statements*; can you provide a link? Or is it your interpretation of the experimental results? (The short official reason* is: "for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science") *) From the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, responsible for selecting the Nobel Prize laureates in physics, example https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2022/10/advanced-physicsprize2022.pdf

There may be two parts; emitter and receiver, placed close together. An IR emitter keeps transmitting infrared light and when any object comes near, it is detected by the receiver by monitoring the reflected light from the object. If you are far from the sensor the emitted IR light reflected from you will not be registered by the receiver. By blocking the sensor there is no path for the emitted IR light to reach the receiver; the IR light will not be reflected to the receiver. Below is a picture, note the emitter and receiver: IR LED and photo diode. (Source: links to https://www.instructables.com/Easy-Infrared-Proximity-Sensor/ The page describes the principle in more detail) You can google for "ir proximity sensor".

The second equation is not a valid mathematical expression.

ICANN Lookup of www.scienceforums.net says (amongst other things) My guess: Given the expiration date for next year and a few days of global unavailability the registration expired 2022-10-16 and was renewed 2022-10-20.

Thanks for the description. What are the factors of the semiprimes I posted? Note 1: When you post the factors you find with your method, can you please aslo supply the number of x-values you tested? Note 2: I will not take part in the test, but I may comment on the results. I have given my opinion (several times).