Ghideon

I'll try a short answer that opens for further discussions, this is an interesting question. Initially I would put algorithms close together with data structures. When I first studied computer science the introduction course one data structures was immediately followed by an introduction to algorithms. I believe that was a good way to start; many algoritms are tied to, or depend on, the underlying structure of the data. I think it would be less efficient to start with algorithms and then continue with data structures. I would not put algorithms at program level in the general case; many projects I've been involved in have relied heavily on standard libraries that someone else have developed, tested etc. The algorithm was, from our application perspective, pretty much a "black box". But in other cases the algorithm has been much more connected to the application. For instance when behavior of the algoritm is controlled or depends on the user input. So the answer would be "it depends". I see that you mention "main class". I have not read the book you refer to but it implies a standalone program. My quick reply above does not necessarily apply to large and/ore distributed applications and systems.

Murphy's law states that "whatever can go wrong, will go wrong"*. Is that what happened to your attachments? *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy's_law

Hard to tell what's wrong from the information given so far. A few observations: The error seems to occur during initialization of numpy, followed by environment specific messages (Visual Studio). Is the correct version of Numpy installed and used in the program?

Just curious; does it have to be a 100cm sphere? What experiment would require that size rather than something smaller and maybe more practical?

Ok, no problem, but I had hoped for some evidence for the following claim: Because the above seems to be incompatible with Coulombs law. You say there is no difference between the superposition of electrostatic force and "Neutrostatic". Coulombs law is [math] |F|=k_{e} \frac{| q_{1} q_{2} |}{ d^{2} } [/math]. Half the distance d means the force F increase by a factor of four. You seem to claim it increases much more. How? Sorry, I think renaming known concepts from physics is very confusing. I have some basic knowledge about the mainstream physics and find it much easier to base discussions on common definitions rather than personal definitions. Electromagnetic fields in general can have an effect on celestial bodies. Why not open a thread and as questions in the mainstream sections of this forum?

What is the difference between the superposition of electrostatic force and your "Neutrostatic"? You seem to use the formula for electrostatic force; Coulomb law ? Please show the derivation of the formula you use to get your result. Use algebra instead of a numeric example.

I agree with @studiot and I'll add some comments about principles and physical laws. First one you may use is Newton's third law: If 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. In your case this means that when the man is in the wagon he pushes the wagon with force F and the wagon pushes back with force F. There is also a force along the floor of the wagon affecting the man and and equal and opposite force affecting the wagon. This means that when you analyze and sum the forces on the wagon and on the man they add to zero for the combination man + wagon. Given that the force is zero you may look at Newtons second law (or use the first, if you prefer); Newton's second law of motion is F = ma, or force is equal to mass times acceleration. In your case that means that since the force on man + wagon is zero they will remain at rest. For further details one can discuss underlying principles; for instance how Newtons laws are derived from more fundamental concepts and what those fundamental concepts are. There are plenty of experts here that can provide explanations, feel free to post followup questions.

How come the ratio Coulomb force divided by Gravitational force depends on distance in your calculations? I have not gone through the details but please note that when adding numbers of very different magnitudes (b, d and c in your case) you can run into issues with rounding. I also would like to add some more general comments: -What is the connection to gravity in your idea? You have shown Coulomb forces and force from gravitation but no clarification why this is "Another theory for gravity" as the topic is named. -What happens when you add a third body to your example and compare electromagnetic and gravity? -What happens when you scale up your idea? If* your claims were true wouldn't we observe the following? Just as there are tidal effects on earth water there would be massive electrical phenomena related to rotations and orbits? Wouldn't large scale rearrangement of charge in celestial bodies have observable effects; for instance on earth magnetic field, weather and the operation of satellites? The above is intended to inspire some thoughts about how you may compare your idea and accepted mainstream theories and models. You may be able to see topics you wish to study further or what questions to ask to be able to spot the issues. *) Disclaimer: very big if, to allow for discussion, not as support for the idea proposed.

It seems highly unlikely that you would be able to explain observations and experimental results regarding gravity using electromagnetic theories. But please feel free to post your attempts. General Relativity is well established. If you are aiming at replacing that theory with something that has the same predictive power but is based on electromagnetism then my guess is that the probability of success is zero. Some quick notes: Gravity can't be shielded. Gravity is not modelled as a force in General Relativity Elementary particles with zero charge are affected by gravity Etc. Experts in this forum may also explain more fundamentals regarding the mathematics of tensors; source of gravitation is a second-order tensor, the source electromagnetism is a first-order tensor

Please explain why. Please also explain why this is posted in relativity section if your mathematics is not about physics.

Can you provide a reference? As far as I know the best algorithm at this time is general number field sieve and it does not run in polynomial time.

I do not see an explanation of the method that allows for an analysis. As far as I know there is no known method for integer factorization that runs in polynomial time on classical* computers. "Large" is also rather vague. For quantum computers refer to Shor's algorithm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor's_algorithm

From that it does not look like the CPU is running at 100%. Are you running latest version of ZoneAlarm? Is it ok to try to disable ZoneAlarm for a while? If your router has firewall enabled and the windows 10 is patched and has built in security measures enabled (Windows Defender) that should be ok to test for a while. Disclaimer: Do not follow my advise to try with disabled Zonealarm unless you have reason to believe it is safe to do so. Reason for not disabling so could include, but not be limited to: using public Wifi, running old window version, downloading content of unknown quality. Other question to limit the possible causes: Is it only when running qBittorrent the fan is spinning fast? Or does the same thing happen when streaming video or doing other tasks? Side note in case it helps: I once had a computer of a different brand that behaved as yours; laptop got hot and fan spinning fast even at moderate CPU loads (for any programs). In that case dust had gathered in the vents.

Wild guess and questions: Fan spinning fast sounds like CPU is working hard. Which process is working hard? You may be able to see the program's name in the windows task manager. Do you have any antivirus software or similar scanning the downloaded data? That software could be degrading when having many connections.

The question is slightly ambiguous. A MST is per definition the "shortest way" to connect all nodes. What does "without touching" mean? The algorithm must be able to visit edges in the existing MST and if required remove one edge (the new edge or some other edge) otherwise there will be a cycle in the graph and hence not a tree. Note that the question seems like a typical homework task and if that is the case this forums has specific rules that apply.

Yes, mathematics allows for addition of equations. That does not imply you can draw conclusions about physics from that addition without further clarifications. Naive comparison: 0.5e (half the elementary positive charge) is mathmenatically valid but it does not follow that there exists an elementary particle with that charge or that standard model have issues.

Please explain how that addition is valid, the components you add are not arbitrary numbers. (Also, the paper still contains the issues previously mentioned)

But your initial issues are still in the revised pdfs you keep attaching. I’ll try to provide a simple comparing example to highlight an issue in case you did not grasp @joigus and @Markus Hanke's excellent explanations: For arbitrary numbers a and b we know that [math]| b-a | \geq 0 [/math] (1) Lets take x and y such that x-y=0 (2) You seem to argue that inserting x and y constrained by (2) into equation (1) means [math]| x-y | \geq 0 [/math] and hence a possibility that [math]| x-y | > 0[/math]. But that is of course not true because x and y are constrained. What is true for arbitrary numbers a and b is not true for x and y. Just as your inequality; it holds for arbitrary numbers but not for four-vectors.

May I suggest that you focus on that opportunity? Why should every interested member have to parse your posts to participate in the discussion when you could provide a readable format in a quick one-time effort? By "This paper" you mean the attachment named "Time Conflict 5.pdf"? Please note that you have attached several papers.

(Emphasis mine) By "This paper" you mean the attachment named "Time Conflict 5.pdf" ?

Thanks for your comment. I agree that t and t'' are not identical and that was the point. You did not answer the question as far as I can tell. Why do you use t instead of t''? What happens to (3.1) when you use an expression for t" as you did for x"? In other words: Your PDF has: What is the resulting expression for t" and why is that not needed?

Testing inlined math using hint from @joigus*, square brackets vs parentheses. Sentence with three definitions [math]f(x^{2})=\frac{y}{2} [/math] \(f(x^{2})=\frac{y}{2}\) [latex]f(x^{2})=\frac{y}{2}[/latex] end of sentence. Sentence with no math. New sentence [math]f(x^{2})=\frac{y}{2}[/math] \[f(x^{2})=\frac{y}{2}\] [latex]f(x^{2})=\frac{y}{2}[/latex] end of sentence. <end of test> Below is the code for the above Sentence with three definitions [math]f(x^{2})=\frac{y}{2} [/math] \(f(x^{2})=\frac{y}{2}\) [latex]f(x^{2})=\frac{y}{2}[/latex] end of sentence. Sentence with no math. New sentence [math]f(x^{2})=\frac{y}{2}[/math] \[f(x^{2})=\frac{y}{2}\] [latex]f(x^{2})=\frac{y}{2}[/latex] end of sentence. *) Thanks !

Question: In your attached PDF-document there is this section: Why is the time in frame K" t and not t"? Or in other words why have you equation (3.1) written as [math]x'=\gamma(x''-a-vt)[/math] instead of this: [math]x'=\gamma(x''-a-vt'')[/math] Please note that you can use latex within math-sections on the forum: [math]x'=\gamma(x''-a-vt'')[/math] I guess that is what @joigus uses as well.

I have to agree on that in this case; simple pictures without any written text did not seem to help them. Side note: In a general context, not regarding the issues this specific member had, I can see a point @HallsofIvy's comment: "smaller pennies" over here could be interpreted as something like "coins of smaller value" (such as 2€ vs 1€ coins). But I guess such an issue would be easy to solve if the member involved intended to have a fruitful discussion.

An image representation would be ok if it addressed the problem you wish to solve. I try (but for some reason fail) to make you acknowledge and present some work regarding the fundamental issues your proposed idea have; the number of combinations and the lack of method to distinguish wanted from unwanted data in the information you wish to search. Pixels, colors, vendor file formats, programming languages etc are irrelevant details at this point as far as I can see. Note that the problems with your idea have many really interesting properties that could be discussed. For instance if the problem is undecidable or not*. Depending on your background you might want to study some brach if computer science* in more detail to be able to provide support for your speculations. Thanks for the offer, I am currently not working on, or planning to work on, improving anything stated in this thread. *) Feel free to ask questions in the mainstream sections of the forums. Speculations is for defending your ideas so any guiding would be off topic here and I have not any opinion yet