Ghideon

I have not used marine plywood but when working with materials with high risk of tear out and splintering I normally cut oversize and trim with a router. For long cuts I find it easier to get good precision with the router the with sanding. In my case I do not have any saw that can cut to good precision and also not splinter plywood or chip board so I have to cut to oversize and then fix.

@Bill McC The topic is "Spotting Pseudoscience"; is your post meant as an exercise for other members?

Basic question @Bill McC: You seem to claim that mass equals volume. If mass equals volume then a 4 liter tank has the same mass when empty as when it is filled with water, since volume is 4 liters in both cases. Does that match what we observe around us?

Simply because I did not think of it, I did not understand your method enough to see Excel (or graphing software) as part of the solution. And excel number precision is 15 digits* and the method seemed to require more precision to be of practical use. *) Source: The list of specifications at support.microsoft.com/

Thanks for your reply. Can you elaborate on the steps to use to solve a general case; a case constructed in such a way that your method works? I give you the number [math]m[/math]. I know [math]m[/math] is the product of two integers [math]n[/math] and [math]n+2[/math] so your method should be applicable. Please show the steps required to calculate factors [math]n[/math] and [math]n+2[/math] using your method. In other words; in your posts so far I see numerical examples, I would like to see the formulas and steps expressed for any number [math]m[/math] where [math]m[/math] is the product of two integers [math]n[/math] and [math]n+2[/math] as per your statements about the limitations of your method.

Yes and no, I think. My intuitive approach was to not look at the wormhole and just treat B's travel as a "Black Box" according to A. From the point of view of observer A the equations of special relativity should predict the outcome regardless of how B managed to travel. Or in other words; A should be able to apply the equations of SR to the flat spacetime in A's frame of reference and get a valid result. Or leave SR and apply other formulas* but that, in my opinion, deviates too far from the twin paradox But I am not sure my approach is a correct way to try to apply SR in this scenario you have created. (Thanks by the way for an interesting and refreshing discussion!) *) probably General Relativity?

I meant that the answer I gave was quick, sorry for being unclear. But here is a quick one with an attempt at using the time dilation formula to illustrate my quick answer. Time dilation formula: [math]t= \frac{t'}{ \sqrt{1- \frac{ v^{2} }{c^{2} } } } [/math] Assume that an observer "A" , stationary relative to the earth, applies the above formula to calculate the time dilation and/or time experienced by the twin "B" travelling through the wormhole. From A's perspective B moves one lightyear in a very short amount of time (time much less than on year) and hence A uses a velocity v>c in the formula. The result contains the square root of a negative number since [math]1- \frac{ v^{2} }{c^{2} } < 0[/math] and hence SR fails in the scenario.

I find your question interesting! I have not done the math to check this (yet) but I get a feeling that the wormhole introduces a scenario that special relativity does not adress. Does the formulas used to resolve the twin "paradox" apply when faster than light travel is possible? Can an observer, stationary relative to the earth, apply SR to calculate the time experienced by the twin travelling through the wormhole? My reply is a quick intuitive answer and there may be more to your question than I realise at this time.

Thanks for your reply. Since your description deviates from the predictions of Newton's law of universal gravitation (and also general relativity) can you provide the mathematical equations used in your model that predicts the results you claim? What scientific method did you use? I know about models for gravity and a few things about applying such models. As an engineer I find Newton useful for low relative velocities and masses. Einsteins model predicts bending of light and is supported by experiments. What experiments and observations support your idea?

Hello. A quick answer, your scenario sounds like a task for RPA*, Robotic Process Automation. Typically such frameworks have some means to interact with office programs such spreadsheet programs. No or limited amount of coding may be needed; it is often more like recording and modifying macros. You typically teach the software how to manipulate the GUI of the office program. In cases with a singel user and where no central orchestration is required I would look at a community edition** of some of the commercial vendor's product. There are also or open source alternatives. Personally I would start looking from the RPA/Macro/automation perspective rather than from software development/programming language perspective in the described situation. *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotic_process_automation **) Often free for personal or limited commercial use. I'm not going to promote some specific vendor or product here; that would require more information and some evaluation.

Are you talking a bout events in a specific country or something that you suggest are applicable on a global scale? I see no attempt at answering my question. Maybe your version of gravity do not adress the points I did want to discuss.

Trying to understand/rephrase your question by using @iNow answers @MPMinIs your question something like "can gamma rays (wavelength of ~100 picometers) emitted from close to a black hole be redshifted into the visible spectrum (400-700 nanometers)?

You seem to describe something not physically possible: one object with two different accelerations at the same time. Please clarify.

Trying to understand you claim and its implications: are you claiming that you created gravity* that did the lifting or was your "gravity" and electromagnetic effect? As far as I can tell a device** capable of artificially generating enough gravity to move or affect a small, (low-mass) object would also have an effect on large objects (with large mass). How does this match your observations? *) As modelled by mainstream physics **) No such device exists. Artificial gravity=having a significantly different gravitational pull than what is modelled by m1*m2*G/r^2. Hope this is enough precision for this discussion

Does as habitable as the Earth include for instance identical atmosphere, temperature, vegetation, amount of sunlight and gravitation? If not, what are the differences between mars and earth in the scenario you speculate about?

What makes 72 special? Can you show how the method works in the general case [math]n(n+2)=m[/math] where [math] n \in N, m \in N [/math]?

Hello! Why not try this forum you just joined? Post a science question and evaluate the responses you get! Personally I have no preferred best forums, I use many different sources depending on the context since the topic of computer science and its applications are so wast.

Unfortunately the video doesn't seem to be public, was that intentional? When I click the link YouTube responds with: "The video is unavailable" "This video is private."

Apply* Newton's laws F=ma (2nd law) and when an object A exerts a force on object B, then object B must exert a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction back on object A (3rd law). You will find that the mass is always m, or in other words, that the ratio m/m1=1. Your definition will result in F1=F, m1=m and a1=a or an unphysical situation according to Newton. I may get some time to post an example later if you wish. *) correctly applying them that is.

Maybe this helps: As predicted by general relativity and confirmed by observation of the GW170817 neutron star merger*, the speed of light and the speed of gravitational waves is identical. On what scientific grounds do you base your doubts regarding distances in space? *) https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0145/P1700294/007/ApJL-MMAP-171017.pdf

Ok. Feel free to post an updated version for further discussion. You can report the issue, edit the post (within 60 minutes) or post a followup with clarifications. FTFY: The quote of Ghideon is unfortunately incorrect. Red strikethrough does not belong there: Thanks for observing that!

You are assuming P=NP . It is equally valid* to assume that P≠NP . How does the proof handle that? *) Or even better, according to a majority of researchers in a poll: https://mags.acm.org/communications/201205?pg=12#pg12

I agree. And even if the medium is in a state in which is stable it may be destroyed by accidents, failures, sabotage and other. In my opinion, no.

You mean to compare these two different calculations? [math] \sqrt{-2}^{10}[/math] and [math] \sqrt{-2^{10}}[/math] The order is important and well defined. Adding parentheses explicitly to show: [math] (\sqrt{-2})^{10}[/math] and [math] \sqrt{(-2^{10})}[/math] Since the calculations are different there are two results: [math] \sqrt{-2}^{10}=-32[/math] [math] \sqrt{-2^{10}}=32[/math]

from the paper: Trying to understand: The method works on equations of the form [math]n(n+2)=m[/math] , [math]n \in N, m \in N [/math] The integer [math]m[/math] is known and the method will find the unknown integer [math]n[/math] ?