A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 4th 05, 01:41 AM
LEFTY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Heh heh -

In a typical population of 1,000,000, I would guess that there are
probably 3,000 people who are capable of solving the math without much
difficulty. Possibly fewer.

The number of people who actually have access to an unabridged list of
real SSN's is probably much smaller. I think that this list would be
really helpful, because there are only 250,000,000 people in the US,
hance, approximately that many SSN's. Knowing which numbers are not
active SSN's would narrow in on a solution, but only part way.

And if you have 67 million SSNs which are the product of two primes
both greater than 161, then the odds are more like 1:67,000,000. And,
assuming only 1/4 of all possible SSN's are valid - (250,000,000 is
1/4th of 9*10^8), this brings the odds down to something like 1 in
17,000,000.

- Assuming the original assertion was even truthful ; )

  #22  
Old February 4th 05, 04:39 AM
Brian Tung
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

LEFTY wrote:
In a typical population of 1,000,000, I would guess that there are
probably 3,000 people who are capable of solving the math without much
difficulty. Possibly fewer.


Three in a thousand? That's probably not too far off.

The number of people who actually have access to an unabridged list of
real SSN's is probably much smaller. I think that this list would be
really helpful, because there are only 250,000,000 people in the US,
hance, approximately that many SSN's. Knowing which numbers are not
active SSN's would narrow in on a solution, but only part way.


Unless active SSNs are somehow biased with respect to being the product
of two large primes, it won't affect the probability--only the total
number of such SSNs.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt
  #23  
Old February 4th 05, 05:50 AM
LEFTY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Brian Tung wrote:
LEFTY wrote:
In a typical population of 1,000,000, I would guess that there are
probably 3,000 people who are capable of solving the math without

much
difficulty. Possibly fewer.


Three in a thousand? That's probably not too far off.

The number of people who actually have access to an unabridged

list of
real SSN's is probably much smaller. I think that this list would

be
really helpful, because there are only 250,000,000 people in the

US,
hance, approximately that many SSN's. Knowing which numbers are not
active SSN's would narrow in on a solution, but only part way.


Unless active SSNs are somehow biased with respect to being the

product
of two large primes, it won't affect the probability--only the total
number of such SSNs.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt






I'm much better at FermiMath than number theory, but if I had to make
an educated guess, I think that I would probably earn about 5 times my
current salary if the opposite were true.


I dont know how good I am at cosmology. There is a very high
probability that I suck at it, and that my ideas are ridiculous.
However, when placed side by side with other explanations of quantum
wierdness, I'd have to say that the probability that I am right is very
likely non-zero.

Perhaps I could calculate the probability of being correct, but that
would preclude my ability to ever know if I was or not ?


Looks like HP just announced some type of quantum computing technology.
Very interesting stuff.

I need to prove if the 3rd dimension exists or not as described in this
thread. How to construct a test of such a thing ?

  #24  
Old February 4th 05, 07:42 PM
Ernie Wright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

LEFTY wrote:

In a typical population of 1,000,000, I would guess that there are
probably 3,000 people who are capable of solving the math without much
difficulty. Possibly fewer.


Maybe. I wouldn't automatically assume that about the readers of the
sci.* hierarchy, though.

And if you have 67 million SSNs which are the product of two primes
both greater than 161, then the odds are more like 1:67,000,000.


Your choice of the otherwise apparently arbitrary number 161 would lead
me to guess that one of the factors is close to this. And SSNs aren't
random. The high digits are pretty highly correlated with the date and
place of issue. We could be down to a few thousand candidates.

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew

  #25  
Old February 5th 05, 02:09 AM
LEFTY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Actually, you are correct. The number of people who can make such a
claim (SSN product of 2 primes both161) are probably few in number.
The only reason I even mentioned it is that while it would be difficult
to determine my identity from this fact alone, it would also be nearly
impossible for someone to impersonate me. Although I cant think of a
single reason why someone would want to, in my case, .........



I was thinking about the whole "gigantic clock" argument, and it seems
like this must be related to relativity somehow. My whole argument
about time is based on motion, and relativity (GR) is also based on
motion. They must be related somehow, but I do not know how.

Anyhow-
I need an experiment to falsify, or validate my absurd claims about the
universe.

The idea that information could travel instantaneously seems to make
sense, because 3D is a point in 4D spacetime, and 3D has no time
component so that if anything happens in 3D it must happen
instantaneously. This seems to explain parts of the beam splitter
experiments very well, but hindsight is 20/20. I need to make a
prediction, and then validate it.

What other properties would you expect from 3D ? What behaviours would
you expect to observe at the boundary between 4D and 3D ?

Might be able to use the property of "uniqueness of physical objects"
somehow ?

OK - Here's what I need to know.
I want to set up a beam splitter experiment in the following manner.
Instead of having a single photon source, there wil be several. And, We
will try to arrange the apparatus so that if information is travelling
across an unseen 3D manifold, then there must be a topology which it is
following, and perhaps several experiments running simultaneously will
allow us to demonstrate that the information from one beam splitter
intereferes with the information from another.

Or something like that.

Assuming information is travelling across 3D, it must be traversing
some type of topology, and maybe you can play tricks using that fact.
Maybe you can cause interaction of information in 3D which would show
up in beam splitter arrangements. This might be very easy to do. If you
assume that the information is following a path of some kind, maybe
paths can be crossed ?

Hmmmmm......

  #26  
Old February 6th 05, 05:37 AM
LEFTY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

More on setting up an experiment.

Assuming that the relativistic arguments described here are correct, we
have a 4D universe and the quantum world is 3D relative to an observer.
This 3D world is really 4-dimensional, but it appears 3D to an
observer.

Because the quantum world is (for our purposes) really a 4 dimensional
world, energy, or "information" would be expected to interact in much
the same way that we observe on non-quantum scales. However, the whole
process is invisible to us, because we percieve the quantum world as
being 3D, and it is completely invisible to us due to relativistic
effects.

Additionally, the 3rd dimension does have volume, and so forcing
information to interact might be more tricky than if it were
2-dimensional, but should still be possible.

Another problem is that not all energy forms interact very noticeably.
It is common to see energy forms which do not seem to react very much
at all. For example, electrons can be deflected by magnetism, but
photons cannot. The same might be true of "information" which is
expected to interact in this invisible 3D world.

I'm reasonably certain that it's futile anyay - but it all seems to
make sense at this point.

  #27  
Old February 8th 05, 02:34 AM
LEFTY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Many experiments could be set up which would seemingly support the
ideas presented here.

However, what I need is an experiment which irrefutably demonstrates a
transition from the 4th to the 3rd dimension on the quantum scale, or
proves it wrong.

There must be some physical phenomena which can be observed IFF this
transition really exists. Conversely, there must be some physical
phenomena which can be observed IFF the whole idea is false.

True, false, I dont really care. It sems to make sense and I must know
if it's true or not, and why.

There must be something which occurs IFF the 4th dimension transitions
into the 3rd, relativistically.

This should be very easy. It is just good old fashioned dimensionality.
C'mon guys - help me out here. Any & all suggestions welcomed. All I
need is just one little "IFF" and I'ts onward & upward to Sandia.

X true IFF Y true. Two stinking little variables.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.