Keep going, Martin!

I have just watched the mentioned YouTube video.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=74637&postid=1507831

A quite good presentation and performance there, bringing to me an idea that there may perhaps not be possible to bring gravity into the other three theories (or the opposite way around).

When we are looking at the universe, we are seeing both the perfect and not so perfect at the same time.

Order, symmetry and perfectness are living side by side with randomness and chaos and both these elements goes hand in hand besides each other. Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is giving an explanation of the concept of time and how it relates to our three-dimensional space. Time becomes the fourth dimension where we already know of three such dimensions.

In many areas of physical science like turbulence, viscocity and nuclear fusion we are trying to establish mathematical laws for what we are able to see and observe. What we are seeing is based on possible relativistic principles, meaning that trying to observe an object directly is affecting its position and also its physical characteristics and properties.

In the world of Relativity and at least when it comes to Quantum Theory there is also the question of predictability.

We are not supposed to be able to predict when or where a particle will emerge or end up because there is no defined rule for exactly this. Unpredictability means the same as randomness, but not necessarily chaos. There is still some order present in order for this to work out, but in which way it does so is almost impossible to know or tell in advance.

In the world of Quantum Theory we are supposed to be dealing with not only three or four dimensions, but rather eleven instead.

If such a world is readily present in our universe and is possibly including time as well, in which way is it possible to measure those elements which are thought to exist without affecting the same physical characteristics and properties as previously mentioned?

Are the basic principles for this still the same when it comes to Quantum Theory and Quantum Mechanics?

I will be very happy for an explanation to these questions.

Sorry I can't answer your questions mp but this

In the world of Quantum Theory we are supposed to be dealing with not only three or four dimensions, but rather eleven instead.

is something I've been pondering about. Dr. Hawking had a good explanation for it, although those dimensions were reduced afterwards, but there lays an answer to a lot of questions we've been asking ourselves. We're not ready to grasp those dimensions yet, we will hardly ever be is what I think.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

I was finnaly able to grasp the thinking of 4 dimensions. I cant even think about others. But isnt it postualted that the 3rd and fourth dimension are interconnected. You cant have eitehr one with out the other.

A great example I have heard of that is the following. I will meet you at Joes bar. That dos'nt tell you anything. You also need the time. So I will meet you at Joes bar ( the space ) at 7:00 PM This Friday ( the time ).
We humans do this with out even thinking about it.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Time to start up the day perhaps?

If you are out shopping, you are supposed to pay for the food and other stuff you are buying.

Paying for your food is not supposed to make you rich, but at least you do not go hungry.

Rather than paying using money or even a check, I rather use an electronic card instead which is supposed to charge my money account.

If you are familiar with the web, you may perhaps have heard about the mersenne.org and mersenneforum.org web-pages.

Mersenne.org is the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search.

Their purpose is to find very large prime numbers of the format 2^p-1 (or perhaps it better should read 2^n-1)?

The largest known prime number is just such a number and it is a very large number indeed.

It reads 2^57885161-1 and contains 17425170 digits.

Small examples of such primes are 2^61-1 and 2^89-1.

Which is 2305843009213693951 and 618970019642690137449562111

Multiplying these two numbers and you get 1427247692705959880439315947500961989719490561 as the result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_prime

This article is both a very good one as well as interesting. It is also a little easier to get hands on than some other similar stuff located around.

In order to be able to understand the subject of numbers you really need to be a mathematician.

But the nature of prime numbers is not that hard to comprehend.

If you come across a number which you already know is the product of 2^61-1 and 2^89-1, this is called a composite number.

Still interested? Have a look at this YouTube video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIStB5X4U8M

So by means of watching this YouTube video you get to understand the important fact that 1 is not a prime number, but 2 is a prime number. 2 is also the only even number which is prime. All other prime numbers are odd numbers.

The four first prime numbers are 2, 3, 5 and 7. Next follows 11, 13, 17 and 19.

As a general rule of thumb, the order of factors is irrelevant, but 7 / 3 does not divide into an integer number.

Are you still with me?

2 * 3 * 5 * 7 = 210

210 / 2 = 105

210 / 3 = 70

210 / 5 = 42

210 / 7 = 30

Continue dividing the answers you get with the rest of the numbers (or factors) that are available until you end up with the prime numbers themselves.

One set of number being used for research are called Fermat numbers. There are fermat primes (or more or less factors) and the corresponding fermat sequence which is based on these numbers.

This sequence is a quite important one. If you compare these Fermat numbers with the corresponding Mersenne numbers or factors, it soon becomes clear that the Fermat sequence is dealing with numbers that are harder to factorize and therefore finding a solution to, partly because of their format and composition.

Both 2^256 through 2^2048 where n is 0 through 2^n have now been completely factored. Starting with n=4096, these numbers are only incompletely factored, but the numbers as a whole are known to be composite going quite a long way up.

For 2^20+1 and 2^24+1 there are right now no known factors.

For Internet safety, including the use of cryptography, the so-called RSA numbers are being used.

These numbers are composite numbers called semiprimes, but if factored they are supposed to reveal two prime numbers in their results.

A couple of RSA numbers like RSA-1024 and RSA-2048 are still left to be factorized. RSA-768 was completely factored a couple of years ago (back in 2009).

Here is the question. The use or application of numbers is supposed to be of scientific gain, but does this fact always show up?

If you look back at the history of cryptography, which probably was first introduced by Julius Caesar, their use were often and mostly hidden inside other elements which were being used. Their use were not always based on numbers and number theory alone.

The use of cryptography has always been synonymous with secrecy. For policymakers, being able to encrypt vital information has been an important subject point for a long time.

If an important message happens to be sent or transmitted by other means than using a closed envelope and possibly using a courier in order for its proper delivery to the correct recipient, in order to not let the enemy as well as other uninvited people know the contents of important messages which are being transmitted, their contents are being encrypted for only the intended recipient being able to decrypt the message.

Therefore, in order to not let the enemy as well as other uninvited people know the contents of important messages which are being transmitted, their contents are being encrypted for only the intended recipient being able to decrypt the message.

This information should therefore be encrypted for maximum safety and making it impossible for other people to read its contents.

For this reason this subject has often been hard to grasp or fully comprehend by ordinary people, at least those of us who happen to be not so clever when it comes to the subject of mathematics.

At times numbers become very large, meaning that both factor finding and prime number finding becomes difficult, even with the use of computers.

So, if for some reason you are able to factorize a number into its corresponding or given prime number factors, are you supposed to be able to find possible new prime numbers or factors as well?

Still some people are working on this stuff. Does it end up becoming a competition of sorts?

Who is the best prime finder?

Who are supposed to be able to find the biggest prime number around?

If you happen to be using the https: protocol rather than the http: protocol, you certainly know that what you are sending and receiving is not supposed to be read by someone in between. If I happened to write "Hello world" twice, am I supposed to be reading "cwpzpdsegwl" or something else twice as well when this sentence becomes encrypted?

The only thing I am able to discern is that this sentence is starting with a large caps, has a space and contains two vocals in the first word and one vocal in the second word. Nothing more.

Because computers now are getting more powerful, this means that all the time even more numbers are becoming factorized.

Also new prime numbers are discovered from time to time as well.

So, in all of this - where does privacy start and where does it end? Has the Internet / World Wide Web perhaps killed off our rights to privacy?

I leave it to others to decide.

I just came across this YouTube video,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj4FozCSg8g

Watch it for the first two or three minutes or more and you may know what I mean.

Everything has a purpose and in many instances things are connected with each other in different ways.

You may be able to find some interesting numbers in the results from Seti@home as well, but for now I leave it to others to find out what these numbers are all about.

Edit: Skip to some 19:00 into the mentioned video and there is one thing there I do not understand. In the formula being presented there it reads 3/2 before the last equation within parenthesis. But what is that italic "I" symbol or letter before the · or * 3/2 ?

Anyone having an answer to this problem?

Time to start up the day perhaps?

If you are out shopping, you are supposed to pay for the food and other stuff you are buying.

Paying for your food is not supposed to make you rich, but at least you do not go hungry.

Rather than paying using money or even a check, I rather use an electronic card instead which is supposed to charge my money account.

If you are familiar with the web, you may perhaps have heard about the mersenne.org and mersenneforum.org web-pages.

Mersenne.org is the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search.

Their purpose is to find very large prime numbers of the format 2^p-1 (or perhaps it better should read 2^n-1)?

The largest known prime number is just such a number and it is a very large number indeed.

It reads 2^57885161-1 and contains 17425170 digits.

Small examples of such primes are 2^61-1 and 2^89-1.

Which is 2305843009213693951 and 618970019642690137449562111

Multiplying these two numbers and you get 1427247692705959880439315947500961989719490561 as the result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_prime

This article is both a very good one as well as interesting. It is also a little easier to get hands on than some other similar stuff located around.

In order to be able to understand the subject of numbers you really need to be a mathematician.

But the nature of prime numbers is not that hard to comprehend.

If you come across a number which you already know is the product of 2^61-1 and 2^89-1, this is called a composite number.

Still interested? Have a look at this YouTube video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIStB5X4U8M

So by means of watching this YouTube video you get to understand the important fact that 1 is not a prime number, but 2 is a prime number. 2 is also the only even number which is prime. All other prime numbers are odd numbers.

The four first prime numbers are 2, 3, 5 and 7. Next follows 11, 13, 17 and 19.

As a general rule of thumb, the order of factors is irrelevant, but 7 / 3 does not divide into an integer number.

Are you still with me?

2 * 3 * 5 * 7 = 210

210 / 2 = 105

210 / 3 = 70

210 / 5 = 42

210 / 7 = 30

Continue dividing the answers you get with the rest of the numbers (or factors) that are available until you end up with the prime numbers themselves.

One set of number being used for research are called Fermat numbers. There are fermat primes (or more or less factors) and the corresponding fermat sequence which is based on these numbers.

This sequence is a quite important one. If you compare these Fermat numbers with the corresponding Mersenne numbers or factors, it soon becomes clear that the Fermat sequence is dealing with numbers that are harder to factorize and therefore finding a solution to, partly because of their format and composition.

Both 2^256 through 2^2048 where n is 0 through 2^n have now been completely factored. Starting with n=4096, these numbers are only incompletely factored, but the numbers as a whole are known to be composite going quite a long way up.

For 2^20+1 and 2^24+1 there are right now no known factors.

For Internet safety, including the use of cryptography, the so-called RSA numbers are being used.

These numbers are composite numbers called semiprimes, but if factored they are supposed to reveal two prime numbers in their results.

A couple of RSA numbers like RSA-1024 and RSA-2048 are still left to be factorized. RSA-768 was completely factored a couple of years ago (back in 2009).

Here is the question. The use or application of numbers is supposed to be of scientific gain, but does this fact always show up?

If you look back at the history of cryptography, which probably was first introduced by Julius Caesar, their use were often and mostly hidden inside other elements which were being used. Their use were not always based on numbers and number theory alone.

The use of cryptography has always been synonymous with secrecy. For policymakers, being able to encrypt vital information has been an important subject point for a long time.

If an important message happens to be sent or transmitted by other means than using a closed envelope and possibly using a courier in order for its proper delivery to the correct recipient, in order to not let the enemy as well as other uninvited people know the contents of important messages which are being transmitted, their contents are being encrypted for only the intended recipient being able to decrypt the message.

Therefore, in order to not let the enemy as well as other uninvited people know the contents of important messages which are being transmitted, their contents are being encrypted for only the intended recipient being able to decrypt the message.

This information should therefore be encrypted for maximum safety and making it impossible for other people to read its contents.

For this reason this subject has often been hard to grasp or fully comprehend by ordinary people, at least those of us who happen to be not so clever when it comes to the subject of mathematics.

At times numbers become very large, meaning that both factor finding and prime number finding becomes difficult, even with the use of computers.

So, if for some reason you are able to factorize a number into its corresponding or given prime number factors, are you supposed to be able to find possible new prime numbers or factors as well?

Still some people are working on this stuff. Does it end up becoming a competition of sorts?

Who is the best prime finder?

Who are supposed to be able to find the biggest prime number around?

If you happen to be using the https: protocol rather than the http: protocol, you certainly know that what you are sending and receiving is not supposed to be read by someone in between. If I happened to write "Hello world" twice, am I supposed to be reading "cwpzpdsegwl" or something else twice as well when this sentence becomes encrypted?

The only thing I am able to discern is that this sentence is starting with a large caps, has a space and contains two vocals in the first word and one vocal in the second word. Nothing more.

Because computers now are getting more powerful, this means that all the time even more numbers are becoming factorized.

Also new prime numbers are discovered from time to time as well.

So, in all of this - where does privacy start and where does it end? Has the Internet / World Wide Web perhaps killed off our rights to privacy?

I leave it to others to decide.

A little bit dizzy now, if you don't mind

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=18999

Read the contents of this web-page.

I am registered as storflyt32 there, but right now I am not doing this stuff.

These web-pages are not part of BOINC, by the way.

Also read the postings of that R. D. Silverman and make up your own mind.

The nice thing about BOINC is that is supposed to be promoting science.

If you are having a computer and want to contribute in the field of science, BOINC should be the place where you should go.

Compared with other places, BOINC is a user-friendly environment where you have the opportunity to provide your own resources as well as talent and skills.

The most important aspect of a scientific project is the ability of such a project to provide the necessary resources and background information in order for its participants to obtain personal gains based on this foundation and in this way being able to accomplish results that are favorable to both each of its participants as well as the project.

But from all of this there may possibly be drawn the sad conclusion that science is meant to be of no value at all and that results are supposed to be meaningless, insignificant and of no value.

So what are you supposed to be doing in the meantime?

I guess that it is all for the sake of science, or what the heck it may else be.

:( DUH!

Ever heard about Mills' constant?

This one was new to me before yesterday.

For now I suppose you have read that mentioned web-page.

Assume you are not that lazy and want to multiply those two mentioned numbers which are being listed there.

If it was not already mentioned or is unclear, both of these two numbers are supposed to be prime numbers.

So if I choose to do this am I supposed to be able to notice any difference?

Anyway, why not check out 2^48853-1 in the Factor Database at the same time?

This number has a given composite factor of 1786 digits. Not shown, but this number is a 23 digit prime multiplied with a 1764 digit probable prime (PRP).

Anyway, that 1764 digit probable prime also lies there more or less on it own ("on the loose").

What you are seeing to the right there is the rest of this number. For now, this part of this number more or less refuses to bow, meaning that it defies attempts at decomposing (or factoring) it.

Give it a try will you? This is what numbers are all about.

Compare this way of dealing with numbers with a gaussian score when running Seti@home. For now a given gaussian score is not supposed to be any proof for the existence of E.T., but that may well be another story.

Oh, come on.

Science is not supposed to be infallible.

This is why we are supposed to believe (or not believe) in things we are seeing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbLYB2hJMsk

Master of ?

Master of what?

Master of sciences.

Oh, finally I am starting to get at it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbLYB2hJMsk

Edit: Rewinded my playlist.

Are there still some surprises around (excluding the sweet voice, ehm, commercial)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbLYB2hJMsk

She can be heard at 1:47 and also later on.

Hair gel?

Suddenly she became old (at least when it comes to the voice).

End of video.

Enjoy.

Enjoying.

It is supposed to be a "flip".

The American way of doing things, of course.

Because I was looking for white cheese in the food shop.

Oh, by the way, 13 is one less of 14. 28 is supposed to be a "perfect number".

Shy or short of imperfectness.

Unexplained phenomena.

Unexplained phenomena.

Maybe??

Listened to most of the video.

---

Oh, yes!

In the end women are supposed to be able to decide.

Meaning, being in charge of things.

You have my word for it.

If I want to fill up my belly, that is what food is all about.

If my stomach for some reason goes empty, it becomes "involuntary" manslaughter.

By, the way, I started up by watching those Russian soldiers arriving in a lorry together with a hidden camera at a supposed or suspected crash site.

Excluding the guards which always happens to be around, they supposedly found something which in the end was reported to the KGB.

Just one part of it.

Anyway, wrong message board?

But this story is supposed to be all around.

Namely that story about the end of "Blade Runner".

The name Rutger Hauer pops up in my mind.

Sorry if I did not catch the name properly. I need to check it out.

I guess I may may go back and watch the end titles.

Better choose someone being 45 rather at 49 years of age.

Windmills and fans, I once again retracted one step and now am able to playback the end video of Blade Runner.

I am going to mention this another place, but the windmill or fan scene was the one that initially popped up in my mind.

Unfortunately age and ageing is the ultimate killer when it comes to everyone.

Better say no than yes.

Scrolling back a little, there may perhaps be a better wording suitable in some places, like ...

See you tomorrow.

What a big stomach!

Built for a purpose and now she became just to old.

Too old, too old.

Say yes, say no.

Huh, looking it up.

From the Olympic Games.

Searching for "Say yes say no" or the similar.

A singer that is. Colored or negro (big fashion).

Los Angeles 1984 Olympic games.

Possibly a "R". in his name.

Please help me!

Thanks!