Daedalus

I'm not sure. He may be a troll from Narnia for all I know.

Here is that link you missed: http://primes.utm.edu/largest.html http://primes.utm.ed.../page.php?id=14 Ooo.... this one is huge: http://www.math.utah...largeprime.html I can keep this up all day. If you are interested in large numbers than visit this site: http://www.mersenne.org/ They love to prove that these large numbers are primes.

Well, if the numbers I have listed are bigger than your number, then clearly your number is NOT the biggest number of all time. Oh... prime numbers are probably more proper than yours.

Not a proper number? You just made 7,212,610,147,295,474,909,544,523,785,043,492,409,969,382,148,186,765,460,082,500,085,393,519,556,525,921,455,588,705,423,020,751,421 cry :'( The answer to what? The meaning of life?

This prime number is bigger and has 100 digits: 7,212,610,147,295,474,909,544,523,785,043,492,409,969,382,148,186,765,460,082,500,085,393,519,556,525,921,455,588,705,423,020,751,421 This prime number is even bigger yet with 200 digits: 40,992,408,416,096,028,179,761,232,532,587,525,402,909,285,099,086,220,133,403,920,525,409,552,083,528,606,215,439,915,948,260,875,718,893, 797,824,735,118,621,138,192,569,490,840,098,061,133,066,650,255,608,065,609,253,901,288,801,302,035,441,884,878,187,944,219,033 This prime number is bigger than your number and it's a palindrome: 742,950,290,870,000,078,092,059,247

That's just the count of the digits making up the number and not the number itself. Your number only has 22 digits.

Have you ever heard of the Ackermann function? The numbers produced by this function can easily become larger than your 22 digit number. Also, a googolplex [math]10^{10^{100}}[/math] is by far larger than your number and only uses a one and a whole bunch of zeroes. We even know about prime numbers larger than your number: http://primes.utm.edu/largest.html The largest known prime from 2008 is [math]2^{43112609}-1[/math] and has 12978189 digits.

I second that notion.

Yes you can actually solve this problem without knowing the radius of the cylinder. Since I can't actually give you the answer, I will help you set up the equations so you can solve it. First, let's define some variables that will make our equations clear and understandable. The height of the cylinder is: [math]H_{cyl} = 6.70 \, \text{cm}[/math] The height of the cylinder that is submerged or under water is: [math]H_{sub} = 6.70 \, \text{cm} - 1.70 \, \text{cm} = 5.0 \, \text{cm}[/math] You should know that the volume of a cylinder is: [math]V = h\, \pi \, r^2[/math] Now that we have the above variables and equation for the volume of a cylinder, we can begin to solve this problem. We can see from the above quote from Wikipedia that the magnitude of the buoyancy force is: [math]B=\rho_f \, V_{disp} \, g[/math] We know that the force of gravity is trying to pull the cylinder down and that the buoyancy force is trying to raise the cylinder up. The force of gravity acting upon the cylinder is: [math]F = m\, g[/math] However, the cylinder is neither sinking or rising. This means that the net force on the cylinder is zero and the magnitude of the buoyancy force is equal to the magnitude of the gravitational force: [math]F_{net} = m\, g - \rho_f \, V_{disp} \, g = 0[/math] We can rearrange the terms to show that the forces are equal in magnitude: [math]m\, g =\rho_f \, V_{disp} \, g[/math] Now that the forces are balanced, we can divide both sides by the gravitational acceleration to obtain the mass of the cylinder: [math]m =\rho_f \, V_{disp}[/math] You should be able to work the problem from here on because: 1.) You know that the density of water is [math]\rho_f = 1\, \text{gram} / \text{cm}^3[/math] 2.) You know that the volume of water displaced is equal to the volume of the cylinder that is submerged [math]V_{disp} = H_{sub}\, \pi \, r^2[/math] 3.) You know that the mass of the cylinder is [math]m =\rho_f \, V_{disp}[/math] 4.) You know that the volume of the cylinder is [math]V_{cyl} = H_{cyl}\, \pi \, r^2[/math] 5.) You know that density is equal to [math]m / V_{cyl}[/math] Make sure that you take into account the final units that your teacher wants when you work out the answer!!!

Is it that you do not believe in gravity's role in affecting bodies of water, or just gravity itself?

As everyone has stated, it would seem you are missing the quantity of gas being ordered. Let's write the problem as follows: Equation for A: [math]0.85 \times G + 0.05 \times M[/math] Equation for B: [math]0.80 \times G + 0.05 \times M[/math] Where [math]G[/math] is the number of gallons ordered and [math]M[/math] is the number of miles to delivery. The answer in the book is 64 miles from A. So we will cheat and use this answer which gives us the following distances: Distance from A = [math]64[/math] Distance from B = [math]228-64=164[/math] Now let's substitute those values back into the equations: Equation for A: [math]0.85 \times G + 0.05 \times 64 = 0.85 \times G + 3.20[/math] Equation for B: [math]0.80 \times G + 0.05 \times 164 = 0.80 \times G + 8.20[/math] How many gallons of gas should be ordered to make the answer true? We need to set both equations equal to each other and solve for G: [math]0.85 \times G + 3.20 = 0.80 \times G + 8.20[/math] [math]G = 100[/math] If we ordered 100 gallons of gas then the cost to the us would be the same from both A and B if we were located 64 miles from A and 164 miles from B: Cost from A: [math]0.85 \times 100 + 0.05 \times 64 = 88.20[/math] Cost from B: [math]0.80\times 100 + 0.05 \times 164 = 88.20[/math] It would cost $88.20

Then why define motion with just v and a? Wouldn't we have to state that jerk, the rate of change of acceleration, would also have to be zero? And if we state that the rate of change of acceleration would also have to be zero, wouldn't we have to state that all higher order derivatives of a body's position must also equal zero? I'm just throwing this out there because it would make sense that we would have to do so.

First of all this is not what you said in response to Klaynos' criticism. The remark you made towards Klaynos was in fact insulting. Your response to Klyanos: You did not state an opinion about Einstein or quantum mechanics. Instead, you suggested that if Einstein knew Klaynos and learned about QM from him, that we would be a hundred years behind. Second of all, Einstein was definitely aware of QM: Now you are completely dodging the issue of quantifying your theory by stating that you don't have time to run a computer science course: Then why even post your theory at all if you do not have the time to explain the mechanics behind it? You state that you would be glad to address specific questions but don't have the time? I would like for you to explain your theory using the mathematics that describes U1 particles and how they interact to derive everything in existence. I understand the statements you have made regarding rotation and energy, but I would like to see the equations that make QM obsolete. Can you please provide this for us? I am actually curious about what these equations predict.

You are correct. Sometimes I mix things up.

I think the confusion here is force vs. acceleration. Just because the Earth's gravity will accelerate a body, does not mean that the body is accelerating. You have to remember Newton's third law of motion: The force of Earth's gravity is countered due to the ground pushing back. So there is no acceleration due to gravity on the piston while it is being supported by the rod, etc... When the piston is either at the top or bottom, both velocity and acceleration are zero. However, the force of gravity is always in effect. To put it more clearly... if a body was constantly being accelerated due to gravity, it would fall through the ground and eventually end up at the center of the Earth.

Klaynos is not insulting you. There is no reason whatsoever to make statements that you are glad Einstein didn't know him and suggest that we would be a hundred years behind if he did... all because he asked for quantifiable mathematical equations / results which support you theory. You must understand that science is based on mathematics that predicts the outcomes of events. The equations are not 100% correct. They are simply the best we have at the moment. Scientists conduct experiments based on analyzing the predictions of such equations to validate the theory. The equations / mechanics may predict a large set of behaviors but fail in extreme cases. Our technology then takes a leap forward based on this new understanding and experiments are conducted to explore the nature of the behaviors that the equations failed to predict. Thus, our theories and mechanics that describe the universe advance and our knowledge base grows as we develop / extend the equations to predict the observed behaviours. You need to realize that there is a difference between theory and the mechanics that support it. You have suggested a theory but failed to provide quantifiable mechanics that supports your theory. Anyone can say that rotation does this and energy does that. But until you provide mathematics that describe how that works, no one can test or conduct experiments to either validate or invalidate your claims. Therefore, you are not doing science. Please refrain from using insults because even Einstein would ask how you quantified "science" and how you compared your ideas to modern physics because that is what science is all about.

The best way I have found to gain control of my dream is to identify events in my dream that are impossible or way beyond the expectations of ordinary life. It's not an easy thing to do, but I have had a few occurrences where I was able to do this. A few months ago I had a really strange dream where I was walking outside near this place I used to live when all of a sudden an Apache helicopter came swooping by shooting at me and launching missles at my house. I started running and trying to find a place to take cover when I realized that I must be dreaming. As soon as I made that realization, the helicopter disappeared but the damage to the yard and the house was still there. There were windows that were shattered and the yard had huge holes where the missles had hit. The first thing I tried was to see if I could clear the holes in the yard. As soon as I thought about that, the holes disappeared and the yard was back to normal. Then, I walked up to the house and thought about fixing the windows. To my amazement, the glass floated up from the ground and did this Matrix like effect where all the pieces came together and the cracks in the glass fused themselves back together into a single plane of glass. It looked like the scene from the first Matrix movie where Neo seen the mirror repair itself. I remember actually thinking about how that was like the Matrix so I decided to give flying a shot. I looked up towards the sky and jumped. It seemed to work because I looked down and noticed that I was above the house. It was at that moment I began to float down. Even though I thought about going higher, I couldn't control my descent and ended back on the ground. I tried this several more times going higher each attempt but could not fly. I'm not sure why I couldn't fly, but my dream had ended and I woke up with this mixed feeling of awe and at the same time disappointment. I thought about the events in my dream and I realized that the helicopter must have come from my memories of playing Battlefield 2 and the reforming of the glass and attempting to fly were, of course, from my memories of the Matrix. I haven't had many dreams like that, but when I do it's always because I realize that the events of the dream are to strange to be real. Perhaps next time I have a lucid dream, I'll be able to fly.

The numbers are in fact hexadecimal or base 16. Unicode is just one way that computer systems encode text. There is no reason to assume that the numbers represent encoded text. 0x7F = 127 0x1FFF = 8191

He claims that he gets his sustenance from nasal mucus... yuck!!! He's a filter feeder lol!!!

Yeah... sometimes my grammar is lacking, but I was referring to mississippichem's post. That is why I quoted him. I have no clue what "I think out of the box" is talking about except these numbers somehow refer to the end of the Mayan calender. I meant no disrespect towards "I think out of the box". I was just providing some humor that adds emphasis to mississippichem's post. I will refrain from going off-topic and using comics : )

Fractions are just ratios. You know... like portions of a pie / pizza. When people are talking about fractions of the speed of light they are referring to the Lorentz factor in that: [math]\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\beta^2}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{v}{c}\right)^2}}[/math] Where [math]v[/math] is the relative velocity, and [math]c[/math] is the speed of light in a vacuum. You can see from the above equation, that [math]\beta[/math] is the ratio of the relative velocity to the speed of light. That is why we refer to percentages of the speed of light. It simplifies the math so that we do not have to plug in big numbers (i.e. the value of our relative velocity and the value for the speed of light). We simply plug in our ratio and see what the equation produces. Also, I can say that I move at 100 m / s and you are moving at 50 m / s. Therefore, you are moving at 50% of the speed that I am and I am moving at 200% of the speed you are: [math]50 \% \text{ of } 100 \ m / s = 0.5 \times 100 \ m / s = 50 \ m / s[/math] [math]200 \% \text{ of } 50 \ m / s = 2.0 \times 50 \ m / s = 100 \ m / s[/math]

You can still have general relativity and not create paradoxes if you treat time as a spatial dimension. The magnitude of the four-vector velocity of a massive particle / body in the rest frame is equal to the speed of light. So we are always moving through space-time regardless of our FoR. Time is then defined as the distance traveled divided by the speed at which we traversed such distance. Using this interpretation, we can show that you cannot travel to a time that exists as a memory of the past or will exist as a memory in the future. You can't jump from the back of a moving car, in the opposite direction of the car's motion, and expect to land back on the car you just jumped from. The car has already moved on leaving you to hit whatever was behind it. Similiarly, if you somehow managed to travel through a wormhole to the past, why would you expect to see the same mass-energy as it was back then? It has already moved on from that point. I realize that we talk about time travel with wormholes in GR by placing one end near a black hole and the other end somewhere else. The end near the black hole would experience time dilation with respect to the end away from the black hole (i.e. a clock placed near a black hole will register less cycles than a clock away from the black hole). But, think about this scenario. If you are sitting near the end of the wormhole at the black hole, I can be located at the other end of the wormhole but to where I can still see you without looking through the wormhole. We are both moving forward through time. You might appear to be moving slower and your length might be contracted, but you will not disappear from my sight only to reappear at some point in the future. My clock would register more cycles than your clock and we would agree that time-dilation has taken place. So what happens when you step through the wormhole? Did you truly travel into the future? Would I travel into the past? I don't think so. Although our clocks would be running at the same rate because we are now next to each other, my clock would have still registered more cycles. Even though this next part is pure speculation... if you were the same age as I, you may even appear to be younger than me due to the oscillations of your atoms slowing down along with your clock. The reverse would be true if I stepped through the wormhole. So are we travelling faster / slower through time or increasing / decreasing the rate at which our atoms and clocks oscillate? I'm sure we will find that it is the latter case. I have reconciled SR with this view of time in my thread, Temporal Uniformity. As always, I share my theory in hope that someone can prove it wrong or provide evidence to support it.

How about book covers with different subject titles. You could also sell pendants, belt buckles, and bumper stickers.