phil1882

if the admin wants to delete this post, i would fully understand. kinda just needed to get this stuff off my chest. my general problem with the current state of physics: my problem with Einstein: so let me state Einsteins big idea, and then i intend to go into what needs to be done. the laws of physics are the same of any inertial frame of reference, and the speed of light is constant for any frame of reference. now. as far as I'm aware the statement itself has never been tested or verified. we've verified certain aspects of the conclusions this statement leads to, such as time dilatation, and light not being able to be pushed faster in a vacuum via electrical energy; but we haven't tested the statement itself. that is we haven't done the following. accelerate a light detector to a significant fraction of the speed of light, and fire a light beam parallel to it. in order for the theory itself to be true, this test needs to be done. if valid, the light detector even if it's going 60% of the speed of light say, will see the light beam going precisely the speed of light itself, no slower. if anyone has heard of this test being done, i would very much appreciate a link to the website that details the results. my problem with newton: again I'll state newtons big idea, and what needs to be done. all matter forcefully pulls on all other matter, and this is the cause of the matter acceleration effect. now, it clear more massive objects weigh more. but according to newtons theory, all matter falls at the same rate, because gravity pulls different matter at different rates precisely proportional to its mass. that is a 5 pound ball has a small gravitational pull, and a 1000 pound ball has large gravitational pull so they fall at the same rate of acceleration, well this seems fairly testable to me. first get a rock and a spring. preferably a fairly elastic one. also a motor will be necessary. use the motor to accelerate the rock attached to the spring at the rate of g. note the spring oscillation. then drop the same rock spring contraption, once again noting any oscillation. if free fall really does require force, than the spring should not oscillate, or at least do so very minimally during free fall, same as with the motor. again if anyone has heard of this experiment being done, i would appreciate links to the website that detail the result.

granted. a bear "hugs" you. i wish for an uncorruptible wish.

i'll join.

you want to throw three 8 sided dice; such that: all three dice are numbered the same, and 120 different totals are possible; and the maximum number is as small as possible. with 7 sided dice, the best possible is: 1, 2, 8, 51, 60, 79, 83 but your challenge is to go one more side.

who rolls the dice? what difference does that make? random is random; assuming they aren't professional crap shooters. if you really insist, they could each roll 1 dice and take the %3 total restaurant.

they can agree to random chance it. roll a dice. 1 or 4 equals restaurant 1, 2 or 5; 2; 3 or 6, 3

i'm not seeing any possible solution.

you can use the brown and grey tiles to represent the board and the red and yellow brick to represent each side, the "size" of the blocks together equal to its chess equivalent.

consider the golden ratio. 1.618.... now, imagine multiplying this by each integer. keep the numbers it truncates to. 1 1.618*2 = 3 1.618*3 = 4 1.618*4 = 6 1.618*5 = 8 1.618*6 = 9 and so on. its a very interesting sequence with some "nice" properties. now here's my question. if you're allowed any irrational number; which one goes through the most primes and fewest composites?

hmmm! in an interesting puzzle. is there a finite set of irrational numbers you could use to get every whole number? i would think not. but how to prove it?

contact flamebird

contact panther contact framm

okay how about this, instead of making a selection myself i simply let chance decide. for example i flip a coin or roll a dice. it would be pretty hard for a computer to guess the outcome of such a result. though i suppose it would also be hard for a computer to guess accurately my decisions over a 5 year period. i don't see a better answer though.

check status

well i personally see no good resolution to the puzzle. either way you have a good chance of ending with 0.

1) phil1882 (apologies about last round)

unsure