10 Feb 20
@humy saidHe said the math proves it. That proves you wrong. You are in denial of the obvious.
Apparently you didn't understand anything he said.
Did anyone suggest/think that "things" might NOT "move where time passes slower"!?
And what has that got to do with what we were just talking about?
@metal-brain saidHe did not say the maths proves "time dilation causes gravity" or words of that effect.
He said the math proves it. That proves you wrong.
That proves you wrong. He never ever said/implied time dilation causes gravity.
He talked about time dilation, which I never denied the existence of. You do love your stupid straw mans don't you! -keep them coming...
10 Feb 20
@humy saidYour denial of reality is noted. You are a moron!
He did not say the maths proves "time dilation causes gravity" or words of that effect.
That proves you wrong. He never ever said/implied time dilation causes gravity.
He talked about time dilation, which I never denied the existence of. You do love your stupid straw mans don't you! -keep them coming...
11 Feb 20
@Metal-Brain
And you are one arrogant SOB. Mass causes BOTH TD AND GRAVITY AT THE SAME TIME and if you continue saying TD CAUSES gravity you are headed for the nuthouse. AND TD comes from going fast, close to c time slows down to near nothing, if you got close enough to c you could go a billion light years in an hour but you go back home same way and speed, you will find Earth 2 billion years in our future even though only a few hours went by shipboard time so you would have gone 2 billion years into our future. Two separate physics affects causing TD.
TD is NOT the fundamental here. MASS and VELOCITY is the fundamental.
11 Feb 20
@sonhouse saidTime dilation is gravity.
@Metal-Brain
And you are one arrogant SOB. Mass causes BOTH TD AND GRAVITY AT THE SAME TIME and if you continue saying TD CAUSES gravity you are headed for the nuthouse. AND TD comes from going fast, close to c time slows down to near nothing, if you got close enough to c you could go a billion light years in an hour but you go back home same way and speed, you will find Ea ...[text shortened]... e physics affects causing TD.
TD is NOT the fundamental here. MASS and VELOCITY is the fundamental.
"TD comes from going fast, close to c"
We are not going close to c. Stop digressing into velocity. That has nothing to do with mass.
11 Feb 20
@Metal-Brain
THAT is the whole point. TD has TWO causes not one. And you don't have to go close to c to feel TD, even present day astronauts feel it even if it is only a matter of a second of time difference after being in orbit for a year.
If you travel one millimeter per second you will still feel a very tiny bit of TD. That's a fact jack.
TWO separate sets of physics causing the same thing says quite clearly TD is not the fundamental, it is MASS and MOVING MASS causing both gravity and TD.
[off-topic]
Any java experts here?
I wouldn't normally ask for help here for a Java problem here but I am desperate here and I would greatly appreciate if someone here can tell me what is wrong with the small Java program that I posted in the General Forum (link below);
https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/general/what-is-wrong-with-this-small-java-program.184036/page-1
[/off-topic]
11 Feb 20
@humy saidAlthough I STILL haven't worked out what is wrong with that program, I have just worked out a very complicated but reasonable workaround the problem in the much more complex program I am writing thus I am now not so desperate to know what is wrong with it; But I would still like to know what is wrong with that program!
[off-topic]
Any java experts here?
I wouldn't normally ask for help here for a Java problem here but I am desperate here and I would greatly appreciate if someone here can tell me what is wrong with the small Java program that I posted in the General Forum (link below);
https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/general/what-is-wrong-with-this-small-java-program.184036/page-1
[/off-topic]
12 Feb 20
@humy saidI've written 1 java program and it was ages ago. If this was C and not java I'd suggest flushing the buffer for the output. So try replacing:
[off-topic]
Any java experts here?
I wouldn't normally ask for help here for a Java problem here but I am desperate here and I would greatly appreciate if someone here can tell me what is wrong with the small Java program that I posted in the General Forum (link below);
https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/general/what-is-wrong-with-this-small-java-program.184036/page-1
[/off-topic]
System.out.println(" keyReleased on char: " + e.getKeyChar() );
with:
System.out.println(" keyReleased on char: " + e.getKeyChar() + "\n" );
Program copied from General Forum is:
import javax.swing.*;
import java.awt.Color;
import java.awt.event.*;
public class Testing extends JPanel{
public static void main(String[] args) {
Testing panel = new Testing();
panel.setBackground(Color.WHITE);
JFrame frame = new JFrame("Testing" );
frame.add(panel);
frame.setBounds(40, 60, 300, 300);
frame.setVisible(true);
frame.setFocusable(true);
frame.setDefaultCloseOperation(JFrame.EXIT_ON_CLOSE);
panel.addKeyListener(new Key_listener());
panel.setVisible(true);
panel.setFocusable(true); //-so the key listener can detect and respond to key release.
}// end of main method.
static class Key_listener extends KeyAdapter{
@Override
public void keyReleased(KeyEvent e) {
System.out.println(" keyReleased on char: " + e.getKeyChar() );
}// end of keyReleased method.
} // end of Key_listener inner-class.
} // end of Testing class.
12 Feb 20
1 edit
@deepthought saidI just tries that right now and it still didn't work.
I've written 1 java program and it was ages ago. If this was C and not java I'd suggest flushing the buffer for the output. So try replacing:
System.out.println(" keyReleased on char: " + e.getKeyChar() );
with:
System.out.println(" keyReleased on char: " + e.getKeyChar() + "\n" );
Program copied from General Forum is:
import javax.swing.*;
import java ...[text shortened]... // end of keyReleased method.
} // end of Key_listener inner-class.
} // end of Testing class.
Never mind; I have found a reasonable workaround with the actual program I won't to run which is a lot larger than this one because it runs a complex simulation program (for the German tank problem).
12 Feb 20
2 edits
@sonhouse saidIts an old problem during WW2 of how to estimate the number of enemy German tanks just from the serial numbers from captured tanks;
@humy
What is the German tank problem?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem
This isn't widely known but the said Bayesian (as opposed to frequentist) solution described in the above link is WRONG!
The said Bayesian they used is based on a direct but erroneous application of the posterior equation because it was done with a completely flawed mathematical model. Despite it being wrong, it ironically was used very successfully in WW2 to give a rather accurate estimate of the number of enemy German tanks from sampling the serial numbers of captured enemy tanks! The reason why it gave rather accurate estimate of the number of tanks dispite being erroneous is that, by a fortunate maths coincidence, as the number of samplings increase, the mean average that tends to come out of the resulting flawed equations based on the flawed model tends to converge on the same unknown number of tanks!
What my research has done is find the CORRECT maths model and my computer simulation tests it by comparing it with the old flawed model and I have already run hundreds of simulations that very clearly my correct model more accurately predicts the unknown number of enemy tanks than the old flawed model thus proving the old flawed model IS flawed! This is one of the findings of my research I will publish in my book.
I will show the CORRECT equations for this problem on request if anyone here is interested?
12 Feb 20
1 edit
@humy
Interesting. So the bottom line is knowing either the flawed version leading to a fairly accurate assessment or your more correct version, it would seem to me military experts could hack the system by encrypting the S/N's so looking at the data directly without being able to deencrypt the numbers, the whole exercise would be moot.
I assume the more correct solution would find applications in a wider field. Any idea of that wider field?
12 Feb 20
8 edits
@sonhouse saidI think there would be extremely few applications in this case especially with sampling natural phenomenon, and I cannot think of any at the top of my head.
@humy
I assume the more correct solution would find applications in a wider field. Any idea of that wider field?
However, that certainly isn't the ONLY solution I have maths derived because I also used the same maths model, which I call the s-u-k1-tav fractile-base model or fracful model (new term) for short, that, as I explain how so in my book, was itself derived from considering and finding certain philosophical paradoxes involving probabilities, to derive MANY other statistical equations (about 300 in my last count! All of which I show and explain in my book) , that are for analyzing various types of data that has nothing to do with that tank problem but are for completely different probability distributions.
I call the new study of statistics based no that fracful model the study of tavology (new word). I predict that, sometime after I publish my book, tavology will revolutionize the world of statistics. But that might take quite a while because, despite the two forms of proof I explain in my book (maths/deductive proof AND computer simulation proof!) that some of the old statistical models are wrong and mine are correct, I fear it might take a long while for most statistician to accept this. They would have to be first convinced to accept a real possibility that some of the things they were always taught are simply wrong! This might not be easy for them!