Ghideon

That page also references Non-deterministic pushdown automata and Nondeterministic finite automaton. How does it follow that mathematics must be deterministic? Can you clarify how that conclusion is valid as it seems to disagree with @studiot's post? (scienceforums.net/1180863) edit: x-post with @studiot

I gave you examples. Again; according to what sources? This thread is interesting and it would be unfortunate if a good opportunity for discussion is missed due to different definitions being used.

That is the situation adressed in my post above (scienceforums.net/comment=1116693) Is that a proposal for perpetual motion?

Yes. And also: The theories I am familiar with includes for instance nondeterministic finite automaton and analysis of nondeterministic algorithms. Maybe you are using different definitions than used in the papers discussed in this thread.

Please provide a reference backing that statement. Is a nondeterministic Turing machine is fully deterministic?

In addition to the Actor model already mentioned in this thread one example is Petri nets* where multiple transitions are enabled at the same time. *)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petri_net

Can you use the pattern to distinguish semi-primes from non semi-primes? Also I do not think you answered my question; how could there be a pattern? I'll try to add an analogy to illustrate the question further. Below is a scatter plot of two classes of random integer pairs. If both integers (x and y) in the pair are primes then the point (x,y) gets a color indirectly represent semi-primes. if x or y isn't prime then the point (x,y) gets another color. I see no pattern; I can't tell which color, red or blue, that actually represents semi-primes. I also can't predict which color the black dot should have; I can't tell if the dot represents a semi prime or not. In my example it is easy to create the plot because I know x and y. But there is not enough information to classify an unknown (x,y) pair or draw conclusions about semi-primes. Note: I do not claim that a pattern can't possibly exist but if the random generator is fair, then what kind of algoritm could predict which class the random black dot belongs to, red or blue?

In a scientific discussion on a science oriented web site, I would prefer or insist that the only explanations we should entertain are scientific ones. Note: I am probably biased due to my profession as an engineer. "We do not know", "we do not yet know" or "we can not know" are useful responses. Supernatural explanations is typically not very useful in engineering.

Isn't the semi-primes in RSA based on two random prime numbers? I’m curious about a fundamental aspect of the ideas you describe; how could there possibly be a pattern in these conditions? Remember that the starting point is unknown numbers. Nothing is known about the numbers except for one common property; they are primes. You multiply* two random primes and expect a useful pattern** to form, how? What is the basics for that? What algebraic or geometric (or other) mathematical properties could possibly result in a pattern since you start from random numbers? I do not claim to have an answer, I'm just curious how there could possibly be any patten. To me the idea sounds like trying to use a series of coin tosses to predict the future outcome where tossing a fair coin. You could of course predict the average given a large enough set of samples, just as you could predict the average value for n in RSA given a large set. But again, my analogy could be incorrect due to misunderstanding on my part. *) I know about product distribution, constructed as the distribution of the product of random variables, but that does not seem to be related to the ideas presented in this thread. **) A pattern that allows the two factors to be calculated much more easily than using currently known or established methods. This is my interpretation of the goal and motivation from the descriptions posted so far.

I agree. I wonder how the analogy would look like if the survival of monkeys in the experiment would be affected by what they randomly typed. Isn't evolution, in comparison to the specific analogy, more alone the lines that any monkey that randomly managed to write an existing word or part of a sentence should get a reward? (And the monkeys gets no reward) So that surviving monkeys, over millions of years, are those that evolve their language skills or manage to modify the type writers or to cooperate or whatever random change that increase the monkeys chance to survive. edit: x-post with @studiot; seems like a similar argument

Please explain your logic behind the calculation. A solar eclipse means the moons shadow covers a small portion of the earth. And during a lunar eclipse the whole moon is completely in earth shadow. What is the division of the times (7.5 / 108) supposed to represent? The earth rotates during a solar eclipse.

Better results than 885 km were already available more than 2000 years ago. Here is short presentation of Aristarchus and the Moon: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~thompson/1101/aristarchus_martini.pdf. Wikipedia has some facts and links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos Currently the precision is better since the distance to the moon is known with good precision, see for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_(astronomy)#Radar What is the purpose of posting a calculation that gives an obviously incorrect value? Why not ask or learn how correct calculations and observations works?

As far as I know proper time in relativity is denoted by tau (τ). Personally I find pi (π) more practical (or "elegant") with less room for confusion in this context. Maybe you are aiming at replacing the symbol of proper time as well?

I may not fit your definition of a genius, I'll follow this thread and see if you post something worth my time. In the meantime: I agree! And I may add that new discoveries sometimes are triggered by thought experiments* about established theories, illustrating paradoxes or other issues that may be investigated. Einsteins "Pursuing a beam of light" is one example I think of. *) Whether this is an example of experiments in "reality" in the context OP discusses I do not know

(This post may be off topic; I have no clue what OP tries to speculate about. ) I do not understand your post or your idea so I have no comment on that, but if you are interested in ultra strong magnetic fields and space maybe the behaviour of a magnetar* is interesting? Here is a paper describing current scientific knowledge: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.00068. *) A magnetar is a type of neutron star believed to have an extremely powerful magnetic field, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar

Don't take my friendly advice too personal. New scientific ideas and conjectures have to earn their respect. Some ideas turns out to be great, other ideas not so great, some ideas are wrong and some ideas are not even wrong*. One can respect an individual even if they produce some incredibly bad ideas. You might want to check what belongs in S.R (special relativity) vs G.R (General relativity) before claiming: Then please go to that thread and reply to the questions and objections that you have neglected. *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

One more issue: the statement above is not consistent with the setup: (bold by me in the quotes above) A friendly reminder: You are posting on a forum where plenty of members are experts; scientists, teachers, engineers and more. Imagine what you would be able to learn if you posted questions instead of incorrect claims. You would get advanced answers, good references, reading advices, links to free online courses etc. You seem interested in physics and capable of attempting basic mathematics. The predictive power of the current models of mainstream physics is quite good, why not try to find out how those models work before attempting to change them?

No. You have not addressed important issues: (color added by me) As pointed out by several members the plus marked with red is incorrect. Added below* is a link that may help, It shows the correct formula and also how it mathematically relates to the low velocity approximation known from Newtonian physics. (edit: @exchemist nicely shows the error in the full context) (Side note: If, for some reason, you believe your version of the equation is actually correct, then you need to provide some backing evidence) *) https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-physics/chapter/relativistic-quantities/

If you use the equations to an unphysical situation, for instance a system that breaks conservation of momentum is not conserved*, the equations does not predict the behaviour of the system. The equations loose their predictive power; conclusions you draw from using the equations outside of their scope of applicability, will be incorrect. More detail regarding the above equation. The consequence is that you claim kinetic energy (K.E) to be 2m0c2 for an object at rest (v1=0). That is false, kinetic energy at rest is 0. Maybe you got wrong sign in the formula? Please clarify and adjust your predictions and conclusions, also taking @swansont's comments into account. *) Conservation of momentum is a mathematical consequence of the homogeneity of space. That is, conservation of momentum is a consequence of the fact that the laws of physics do not depend on position. (adopted from wikipedia.org, Momentum)

What kinetic energy does the formulas give you for v1=0? Maybe you need to correct the calculation? Hint: at low speeds the relativistic kinetic energy should be approximately be the non-relativistic version mv2/2 (There are other issues with the reasoning; may have more time to read more carefully later)

(bold by me) Yes, it is necessary for the trains to travel below the speed of light . I assume you mean the speed of sound?

Here is what Lagrange* has to say about your setup in zero g. Some quick mathematics: [math]L=T-V [/math] where T and V are the kinetic and potential energy of the system [math]V=0 \rightarrow L=T[/math] [math]T=\frac{m v^{2} }{2} [/math] where v=velocity Or, in generalized coordinates [math] \frac{m\dot q^{2}}{2} [/math] Euler–Lagrange equations: [math] \frac{\partial L}{\partial q_{j} }= \frac{d}{dt} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot q_{j} } [/math] In our specific case without gravity: [math]0= \frac{d}{dt} m \dot q =m \ddot q[/math] [math]\dot q=0 \rightarrow \ddot q=0[/math] In other words; in zero g the device will not accelerate. Please present the mathematics and a comparison to my attempt at analysing the zero g case for your device. It means that a curious person may want to know how an idea is incorrect and what misunderstandings that caused wrong conclusions. And then reject the idea or try to improve it with the help of the acquired knowledge. Side note: When joining this forum I did not know much about Lagrange and Hamilton. I was curious and listened to expert members here and as a result I feel confident enough to try to apply the methods. I'm also confident that any errors will be corrected by expert members and more knowledge will be gained in the process. *) Trying to use standard symbols, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics

Ok. So your setup will behave identically in zero g? Both mathematically and experimentally? A curious person or someone working scientifically would probably ask something like "What is the link? How does the it affect my idea and experiment?"

Are you confusing a mathematical analysis of an ideal setup with an experimental setup?

@John2020 I am still waiting for your inout regarding the more fundamental principles that Newton is based on; physics has continued ot evolve after Newton was active. If you believe space to be inhomogeneous or anisotropic at small scales please provide evidence. Regarding internal forces, an electric car has an engine where there are internal electromagnetic forces. Can an electrical car accelerate along the ground? Yes it can.