Ghideon

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

Thanks for the feedback, good to hear that you are back online and on the forum again! I have been using different adapters simultaneously and I have not seen this type of errors. But I'm curious! In case you find the specific issue feel free to report back. And if the issue comes back there are a couple of other things we may try from the command line, to try to isolate the problem.

Unfortunately your descriptions does not provide enough clarity regarding the previously raised issues to allow for any detailed analysis. The described methods contains many unrelated details and still fails to address the core problems. You seem to want to generate random source code files, not images? What is gained by introducing images* as part of the method, compared to using a data structure that will probably be more suitable for the problem wish to solve? The above initial steps describes requirements for the algorithm or method you wish to create, it does not describe methods or steps how to achieve your goals. Gathering and analyzing requirements can be useful when creating software but it does not give you a solution to the kind of problem you wish to solve. It's easy to state "I want a program that gives me a solution to this problem". But, for the reasons repeated through this thread, you have not presented a viable approach to solve the problem yet; the extremely large numbers of combinations and lack of method to distinguish a hit from a miss in the general case. *) Any digital sequence can of course be used to create some kind of visible representation (=image) of that digital sequence. But that does not seem to be the intention in this case.

We have seen that list of steps a few times by now. I would still preferred o get an answer to the questions raised. I'll try to phrase my question differently: The events each one of the clocks count does not happen all simultaneously. There is something that separates the counted events, referred to as "time" as far as I know. What is it that separates the events in your case if not time? How do you define it without making it identical to time? Given that definition what experiment can be used that shows your idea is correct?

Here is a picture. Force on the current carrying wire due to magnetic field does not include the magnetic field generated by the wire itself. Since force on the current carrying wire do not depend on the wire's own magnetic field the answer is the external magnetic field, in this case the magnetic field generated bý the magnets.

Thanks for your reply. The short answer to my question seams to be "no".

There are experiments with high density glass disc based memories intended for permanent, long term storage. Here is a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5D_optical_data_storage A quick overview: https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/5d-data-storage-how-does-it-work-and-when-can-we-use-it/ Link to paper from University of Southhampton: https://www.orc.soton.ac.uk/news/4282 Maybe the above is what you are looking for? There may be other variants, I have not studied this in any detail. I have not come across any reliable source within mainstream science supporting such claims. Can you provide a reference?

Ok. Doesn't the clocks have to have a stable frequency? If the numbers are not tied to time there is also no frequency, just a quantity of events recorded?

Because the blue arrow is in the wrong direction for the analysis of the force on the current carrying wire. Are you implying that the force on the current carrying wire depend on the magnetic field generated by the current carrying wire itself?