Ghideon

I think a more clear description an picture is needed, it's hard to comment or discuss the design. 

19 minutes ago, ntdsc said:

The redbarron device also creates an intelligence

I'm pretty sure that device did not, and was not intended to, create intelligence.

Some of my online personalities correlate, others do not.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

That makes it harder to cheat (or accidentally gain information) by looking at the back.

Good points!
I couldn't find white crayons around my desk so I used an old envelope and a separate paper. This also makes it possible to change where symbols are located. And I didn't have to draw the symbols mirrored:

Put the paper in envelope and use flashlight from behind the envelope:

I may have a few other ideas; @James Daviscourt Can you give som hints about the game? I mean, if the symbols are static then they will all be known once you have played the game once? There must be some dynamics; separate tiles or that the symbols are not attached permanently to a location on the board?

6 minutes ago, Vexen said:

People crave the need to answer questions

That might apply to some people, but personally I prefer discussions.

8 hours ago, James Daviscourt said:

Or any other

I couldn't resist another attempt... how about writing symbols on the back of paper and use back-light? Could work with the right combination of paper thickness, light and ink.

Quick experiment, using office paper, ball pen and flashlight from behind paper.
Flashlight off:

Flashlight on:

23 hours ago, Strange said:

It may also be important to note that the monkeys and typewriters are not meant to taken literally. I have seen at least one person argue against the concept on the basis that the monkeys would hammer at the keyboard with their fists, jam all the letters then get bored and go eat bananas.

Good point.
Slightly off topic/less serious: If someone persists in such a literal view, how about a counter argument along the following line? If infinite number of real monkeys are given infinite time, infinite number of typewriters (and infinite number bananas) then some monkeys, or descendants, will learn how to type and develop an interest in Shakespeare literature...

48 minutes ago, James Daviscourt said:

truly invisible to the naked eye

I remember the game Brainstorm had red glasses so that one player at a time could read hidden messages on cards. Not truly invisible to the naked eye but maybe good enough for a board game? 

The cards have red/white random patterns and I think cyan coloured messages. The cyan coloured messages will look black through the red glasses and the red/white will look red.

A sample in Photoshop might be*:

For a person wearing red glasses the picture above would look something like the below. 
I've used a photoshop filter to test the effect, I haven't any red glasses/filters nearby.

*) I used a modified version of the sample available at http://photonicswiki.org/index.php?title=How_to_make_a_red_reveal_message

7 hours ago, studiot said:

I have posted this example for discussion to show that purely mathematical equivalence can be too restrictive.

I'll try to add a little example where I think physics/engineering gives same result for 6+6 and 8+4:
Moving a certain weight requires force 500N
The weight is moved the distance 1m
Force x Distance 500x1 = 500 J
Doing it for 6+6 times or 8+4 times results in equal amount of Joules. 

The above is hopefully correct enough to make the point; mathematics (and also hopefully physical formulas) gives same result.

Now a philosophical case where the math* above is too restrictive;
At the local gym I can do a certain exercise requiring 500N of force 6+6 repetitions within 1 minute if there is a short break between sets of 6. But I can not do the exercise 8+4 repetitions since I'll fail at attempt 7 or 8. In this case the numbers that gives the sum 12 is very important to the outcome; 6+6 is not the same as 8+4. On a good day I think 7+5 may be ok.

*) and also physics, mine or in general?

9 hours ago, taeto said:

The phrase "Jack should be just found it" could make one suspicious.

I agree. Your statement made me look at the beginning of the thread again. We didn't get all rules initially, a followup said:

On 2/15/2019 at 5:22 AM, Umurbaba said:

Sorry my bad. a>=b>=c>=d.

So there is no complete English translation given yet?
Speculation: What happens if the correction only applies to Jack? So that the following initial statement 

Quote

Jack only know the range of the digits(biggest -smallest).John only knows a+b+c+d.James knows a*b*c*d.

Actually was supposed to be something like: "Jack only know the range of the digits; meaning he knows that a>=b>=c>=d and he knows a - d (a minus d). John only knows a+b+c+d. James knows a*b*c*d."
In other words, is it possible that John and James do not know that a>=b>=c>=d?
I haven't yet checked what difference this would make when trying to solve the problem.

A maybe even more speculative question:

On 2/14/2019 at 5:05 AM, Umurbaba said:

Jack, John and James tries

But then they all act in another order:
Jack says... James says... John says...

Is that change of order the names intentional or was the names mixed up in translation? I haven't yet checked what difference this would make.
Can we see the original question? (Even if it's in Turkish it might help at this point)

35 minutes ago, taeto said:

So you assume that Jack knows that the range is 3.

Yes.  

35 minutes ago, taeto said:

How does Jack think about the possibility that James knows that the product a*b*c*d is equal to 250?

Thanks! +1
 I missed that possibility because of lack of attention to details. Therefore the solution is incorrect.

(I'm beginning to believe my english skills are too limited for these kind of riddles)

Jack has 3 (range) which means he could believe James product is for instance 0 (3*0*0*0) or 4 (4*1*1*1) so therefore Jack is not sure what James has. Jack can figure out that James cannot have for instance 1 or 2 or 9*9*9*9 or any combination of digits that will let Jack know all digits. (I believe that for each number with range=3 there's more than one possible combination for John, I haven't checked this detail yet)
So Jack says: I don't know all the digits but James doesn't either.

James has 4 (product) so he could guess the number is 2211 or 4111. James can figure out that John’s sum is 6=2+2+1+1 or 7=4+1+1+1. He also see for instance that 6+0+0+0=6 and 7+0+0+0=7 so James, from his point of view,  knows that John can’t figure out the four digits from John’s sum (6 or 7). 
So James says: I don't know all the digits but John doesn't either.

John has 7 (sum) so he may guess that possible numbers are 7000, 6100, 5200, 5110, 4300, 4210, 4111, 3220 or 3211.
John, with his sum=7 can figure out that Jack’s range is 7,6,5,4,3 or 2 from the possible numbers above. John can also see that James product is 0, 4 or 6. 
John then sees that if James product is 0 then James, from his point if view above, would have to see the possibility that John could have had sum=0 and the number would then have to be 0000. So John decides that James product is not 0 since James said "John doesn't know".
John then sees that if James product is 6 then the number would have to be 3211. Then Jack’s range would be 2. But then, from Jack’s point of view, Jack should have seen that Jack’s range=2 means that James product could be 2 and James, from Jacks initial point of view, should have been able to see that 2111 is the number. But Jack said: "James doesn't know".
John then sees that if James product is 4 there is one matching number, 4111, in the list.

So John draws the conclusion that James have product = 4 and Jack has range=3 and the number is 4111.

4-1=3 (Jack)
4*1*1*1=4 (James)
4+1+1+1=7 (John)

I haven’t yet figured out the very last part, if Jack must be able to tell the number when John says that he has the solution. 

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

However thinking through this is quite an enjoyable exercise, do you also find it so?

I agree! 
I'm giving this a try. For some reason I'm having a language barrier trying to write down my reasoning...

My guess is:

I'll try to explain in a followup, not sure at all if my attempt is valid.

bold by me:

8 minutes ago, Circles0 said:

1.) Yes they haven't Although where do you think the idea of beings not from this world come from to start a trend. It did not just manifest from a simple Man long ago it was being taught going back in history there is evidence from many ancient humans that proved such things such as gods and goddesses man cannot manifest ideas without solid proof so who were these gods 

By using the same argument as above, Tolken's work The Lord of The Rings should be considered a true story? Tolken could not come up with his ideas without solid proof of something? Or did I misunderstand something in your arguments?

19 minutes ago, Circles0 said:

( and I am sorry I don't want to sound like "Ancient Aliens" on History Channel)

I haven't seen that show. But I had to check, and you do sound like "Ancient Aliens"*:

Quote

suggested is the idea that dinosaurs may have been wiped out, not by an asteroid impact, but by alien extermination

*) Episode 41 according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Aliens

Hello, I have studied your ideas and have a few questions. Note: there are "hidden content" in the post above but in my browser they are empty sections.

37 minutes ago, Circles0 said:

Over the years many people have been seeing bizzare objects In the sky to convince themselves that there are others out there.

Yet they who have seen "bizzare objects" have failed to find or provide any kind of convincing scientific evidence that extraterrestrials are involved?   

37 minutes ago, Circles0 said:

Now ask yourself how is it that there is lots of sightings but why aren't they exposing themselves to us by now.

First I think there needs to be scientific reasons why to think any extraterrestrials are involved at all?  

37 minutes ago, Circles0 said:

In Addition to my theory to make it even more insane than it already seems

If you have an insane idea, why add things that makes it less credible? Why not post some kind of evidence that the initial part is something worth to consider?

37 minutes ago, Circles0 said:

Millions of years after they created more creatures

Do you suggest that new spices suddenly appeared? Since theres traces of evolution from earlier to later stages*, "they" had take this into account so that the evolution of species from our perspective now has support by evidence?

I believe that Occam and his razor has a few things to say about the ideas. Do you have some kind of support for your claims?

*) Someone with more knowledge about evolution may have to correct me, that statement is not very precise.

I have some questions regarding the last part*
(bold by me)

2 hours ago, graybear13 said:

As the vortex collapses it will pull in more and more gas creating stronger and stronger gravity resulting in increasing mass.

and

1 hour ago, graybear13 said:

produce a strong gravitational field around itself.  It will be interesting to see how earths gravitational field is affected by this system.  I predict that the earth's gravity will be nullified in close proximity to the system. 

Is "gravity"/"gravitational field" the same as what is known from mainstream science? In the last sentence you say "nullify"; that looks like some concept of anti gravity is involved? Or maybe you mean that there will be a Lagrange point between the machine and earth if the machine is placed at an elevated point? Please clarify if we are discussing possible misunderstandings of mainstream topics or completely new stuff.  

*) I might return to other issues later; other members have already commented.

30 minutes ago, nix85 said:

THERE IS NO CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM

THERE IS NO CONSERVATION OF ENERGY

If there were this phenomena could not exist.

What happens when there's no friction? 

24 minutes ago, nix85 said:

I'll give you a hint, this means you can literally "swim" in space. Of course assuming you swing arms in opposing directions to cancel the back torque.

 

Inertial propulsion / Reactionless drive? 

(feeling I'm going of topic)

28 minutes ago, nix85 said:

BTW you are talking to a person who defined the 4th LAW OF MOTION, recognized at Quora and veryfied by independed sources world-wide (if it's not self-evident). Simple yet still denied phenomena that violates conservation of momentum and thus conservation of energy.

I'm not convinced that the above statement increases the credibility of other statements in this thread. But possibly an interesting topic; maybe better discussed in separate thread?
 

3 hours ago, graybear13 said:

Maybe my use of the word neutrino made you think that I was somehow challenging the standard model.  I just picked the particle that fit my conception of the elementary particle of PEE.  I admit that I do not posses the math skills to prove what I say is true, but I can prove it experimentally.  

This all started with me in 1982 when I designed a machine that will create gravity.  And now, after some experimentation and evolution of thought, I believe I can create a genesis particle in atmosphere.    

Thanks for the clarification regarding neutrinos. If you post a detailed description of the experimental setup I'll take a look. Please use definitions from mainstream science or very detailed definitions to avoid further confusion.

1 hour ago, Randall Canham said:

Time is what I am debating, not any type of math, as time is just a man made concept as was earth when we thought it was the center of the universe.

So what is your analysis of the counter example I posted? The muons are not man made and they have no knowledge of any human concepts. Yet they are affected by time dilation as predicated by special relativity. 

1 hour ago, Randall Canham said:

I don't need a 4th dimension of time to find them in the future, just their gps position on earth or their latitude  and longitude  and height if I want to be at its apex.

When you use a GPS you rely on mathematics models that take 4th dimension into account. 

1 hour ago, Randall Canham said:

if you use any math on an incorrect assumption you will always get an incorrect outcome.

I think the opposite is valid as well; If you dismiss math on an incorrect assumption you will always get an incorrect outcome.

6 hours ago, Randall Canham said:

We all know that gravity restricts the motion of all objects in the universe and that is what is making any man made clock to tick faster in orbit above earth as time is not a thing of the universe, it is just a concept.

So what happens when you use other means than man made clocks to verify time dilation? Muons, caused by the collision of cosmic rays with the upper atmosphere, experience time dilation as predicted by special relativity. If no time dilation exists, muons should decay in the upper regions of the atmosphere but as a consequence of time dilation they are present at much lower heights.

More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation

12 hours ago, Science98 said:

Hmm but there is some idea by which we can reduce the speed of light and bring it to our convenient phase . Like 'Cherenkov's light experiment' or 'quantum entanglement'  that can might make this idea possible.

Can you provide some reference to such ideas? 

Less serous note:

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

metal image

Intentional spelling?   
I think "metal image" a good name for the concept of a spaceship-shaped set of photons turned into something solid allowing it to be used for travel. (not likely to happen ...)

2 hours ago, ravell said:

Could you provide the recommended  link to these scientific evidence and experiments confirming special and general relativity?

The Scientific Background paper for the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics summarise experimental achievements regarding predictions by general relativity. The paper also contains 50 references to other papers: https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/advanced-physicsprize2017.pdf

(There's also a "popular science" version:  https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/popular-physicsprize2017.pdf)   

@swansont was quicker to respond with my favourite; GPS.  +1  

40 minutes ago, Science98 said:

The shape will be like a suitable spaceship in order to make space travel possible.

Doesn't the photons travel at speed c? You'll have a hard time boarding the spaceship unless you already have some other mechanism for achieving relativistic speeds? 

16 minutes ago, argo said:

Measurements measure movement of things in the real world, this is their only purpose. Rate of change refers exclusively to the rate of movement in a real thing, if you can measure it, it’s real, period.

Doesn't particle decay happen even if there's no movement involved?