Mathematicians, Physicists, etc come in fur a spik

[JGHR]

Hi Brian, i have often wondered how that dividing by nine trick that accountants use to find transposition errors works.

[EM]

Hi Brian, i have often wondered how that dividing by nine trick that accountants use to find transposition errors works.

Casting Out Nines is interesting due to its antiquity. It is essentially a forerunner of the error-detection and error-correcting techniques used for modern comms. Wikipedia has a few examples demonstrating the procedures:

 

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

[MuckleJoannie]

To put it more simply if dividing the difference between two figures gives an answer that is a multiple of 9 you have a transposition error eg

 

54 instead of 45 - difference is 9

75 instead of 57 - difference is 18

[JGHR]

To put it more simply if dividing the difference between two figures gives an answer that is a multiple of 9 you have a transposition error eg

 

54 instead of 45 - difference is 9

75 instead of 57 - difference is 18

 

Thanks MuckleJoannie, my accountant showed me this to help make sure my books were in better order before I arrived in his office! I was really more interested in the mathematics behind why it works. As far as i know if you have any number say for example 94875, and you transpose any of the digits within the number, say 94875 becomes 98475 then the difference between the two numbers is always divisible exactly by nine. In this example the difference is 3600 which divided by nine gives 400.

If we transpose different digits within the original number say 94875 becomes 94587, now the difference is 288 which divided by nine is 32. I was wondering about the mathematics which make this work with any number and any combination of transposition of digits within the number

.

[Brian86]

 

Thanks MuckleJoannie, my accountant showed me this to help make sure my books were in better order before I arrived in his office! I was really more interested in the mathematics behind why it works. As far as i know if you have any number say for example 94875, and you transpose any of the digits within the number, say 94875 becomes 98475 then the difference between the two numbers is always divisible exactly by nine. In this example the difference is 3600 which divided by nine gives 400.

If we transpose different digits within the original number say 94875 becomes 94587, now the difference is 288 which divided by nine is 32. I was wondering about the mathematics which make this work with any number and any combination of transposition of digits within the number

.

 

This whole 9 trick is something I've never heard of (well, in the way it's used above) but I'll give it a shot...

 

Take any number.

 

Add up the digits of the number.

 

Divide by 9.

 

The remainder you get, is the remainder you would get if you divided the original number by 9.

 

(e.g. 179/9 = 19 remainder 8. Add up 1+7+9 and you get 17, 17/9 is 1 remainder 8, alternatively you could keep adding the digits until you get a number less than 9, in this case we would have had 1+7=8 )

 

In all cases, the remainder was 8.

 

So... This is effectively doing a process called modulo. This is basically a fancy maths term that means you repeatedly subtract some number from another number... This is written as

 

a mod b

 

where a is the original number and b is the number you subtract repeatedly from it. The answer to the above will be some number that is LESS than b. This is exactly the same as doing...

 

remainder of a/b (e.g 7 mod 3 = 7 - 3 - 3 = 1, remainder of 7/3 = 1)

 

Now. Let's go back to the number you mentioned. 94875.

 

You can transpose the digits any way you like, the sum of all the digits will still be the same. This means that if you do the 'add up the digits and divide by 9 trick', you'll get the same remainder.

 

So, we have 94875 and some rearrangement of this which we shall call x. What we want to show is that the remainder of (94875 - x)/9 is equal to 0 which implies that (94875 - x) is exactly divisible by 9.

 

remainder of (94875 - x)/9 = (94875 - x) mod 9 = (94875 mod 9) - (x mod 9) = 6 - 6 = 0.

 

Hence the remainder of the (94875 - x)/9 is equal to 0 and so (94875 - x) exactly divisible by 9. The 6 arises since 94875 - 9 - 9 - 9 - ... - 9 = 6, and since x has the same sum of digits, x mod 9 will also be equal to 6. The above can easily be extended by letting two numbers be called x and y where y is a permutation of the digits of x. Then proceed with above argument except replace 6 by some number n which is the remainder.

 

(9+4+8+7+5 = 33. 33/9 = 3 remainder 6)

 

I dunno if this is clear, anymore questions and I'll try to clarify them.

[Guest Anonymous]

@Brian86

Thanks for your answer regarding the number 23, unfortunately I don't do any C++ coding, but your answer still makes sense to me - cheers

[Michael]

Hello, I'm currently studying for a Masters in Theoretical Physics and Maths.

Done quite a lot of solar theory but probably mainly interested in all things quantum.

 

Sorry i'm late to the party

[Brian86]

Hello, I'm currently studying for a Masters in Theoretical Physics and Maths.

Done quite a lot of solar theory but probably mainly interested in all things quantum.

 

Sorry i'm late to the party

 

Sounds interesting. Any idea what your thesis will be on?

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Hello, I'm currently studying for a Masters in Theoretical Physics and Maths.

Done quite a lot of solar theory but probably mainly interested in all things quantum.

 

Sorry i'm late to the party

 

Sounds interesting.

 

Doesn't it though?

 

Aaaaany way...You bring any Special brew?

 

The most accurate study so far of the motions of stars in the Milky Way has found no evidence for dark matter in a large volume around the Sun. According to widely accepted theories, the solar neighbourhood was expected to be filled with dark matter, a mysterious invisible substance that can only be detected indirectly by the gravitational force it exerts. But a new study by a team of astronomers in Chile has found that these theories just do not fit the observational facts. This may mean that attempts to directly detect dark matter particles on Earth are unlikely to be successful.

 

Today it is widely accepted that this dark component constitutes about the 80% of the mass in the Universe...

 

Despite the fact that it has resisted all attempts to clarify its nature, which remains obscure. All attempts so far to detect dark matter in laboratories on Earth have failed.

 

http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1217/

[Michael]

Hello, I'm currently studying for a Masters in Theoretical Physics and Maths.

Done quite a lot of solar theory but probably mainly interested in all things quantum.

 

Sorry i'm late to the party

 

Sounds interesting. Any idea what your thesis will be on?

 

Literally no idea yet, though have to decide soon. Might stick with the solar and look at something related to coronal heating. Looking at parametric instabilities in coupled cavities this summer though, which might be fun.

[Brian86]

The most accurate study so far of the motions of stars in the Milky Way has found no evidence for dark matter in a large volume around the Sun. According to widely accepted theories, the solar neighbourhood was expected to be filled with dark matter, a mysterious invisible substance that can only be detected indirectly by the gravitational force it exerts. But a new study by a team of astronomers in Chile has found that these theories just do not fit the observational facts. This may mean that attempts to directly detect dark matter particles on Earth are unlikely to be successful.

 

Today it is widely accepted that this dark component constitutes about the 80% of the mass in the Universe...

 

Despite the fact that it has resisted all attempts to clarify its nature, which remains obscure. All attempts so far to detect dark matter in laboratories on Earth have failed.

 

http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1217/

 

Well as I said in first reply I am skeptical of dark matter given that we have no direct detection of any dark matter particles. But let's look at some possibilites...

 

1) Dark matter doesn't exist and this study further proves it.

 

Total possibility, dunno enough about alt theories to give an opinion here.

 

2) Dark matter isn't some type of particle.

 

Perhaps it's a ton of brown dwarfs causing galactic rotation to be the way it is. I dunno if we can detect these too well yet so could be though I dunno if there can be enough of them. This would of course mean we wouldn't detect any hanging around the sun.

 

3) Dark matter does exist and the study is right.

 

I think the study assumes Poisson distribution of dark matter which of course may not be true. If it is not Poisson distributed than we may or may not find any near us.

 

4) Dark matter does exist and the study is wrong in some way.

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.4033v1.pdf

 

Seems like the study makes a hash of some velocity values and ignores actual data. Interpreting the data using the correct values yields dark matter values consistent with current estimates. Out of interest if the original study had come to this conclusion would you have still posted it..?

 

I think ultimately the Gaia mission might be what we'll all have to wait for.

 

5) EU is the real reason for dark matter, life, 42 and everything.

 

For a start solar wind contradicts electric sun theory does it not..?

Has anyone recreated those galactic simulations that Peratt did? Guy did it using basic computers, large time steps, small and limited number of tests, etc. Surely someone should be recreating this using current tech, would like to see that. MOND people seem to be flying out galactic simulations with good results (tho I think it's really just a hash together to make it work rather than some sort of explantation, perhaps there's a deeper thing they're missing who knows) and that isn't exactly a currently accepted or widely studied theory. I can cobble together fairly decent orbital and galactic simulations on my laptop in C++ using free software. Surely someone in the EU field should be able to do the same and recreate Peratts results than address some of the problems with his results with more accurate sims. He didn't have enough time to run many test examples since it took so long for his sims to run back then.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

5) EU is the real reason for dark matter, life, 42 and everything.

 

Correct on all points except the first; EU is of course the real reason for dark matter never having to have been patched on in the first place.

 

To use a Cat Stevens lyric, in what may well become a quote frenzy here...

"the patches make the goodbye harder still":wink:

 

Seems like the study makes a hash of some velocity values and ignores actual data. Interpreting the data using the correct values yields dark matter values consistent with current estimates. Out of interest if the original study had come to this conclusion would you have still posted it..?

 

There is an endless stream of reports issued to say this one and that one today provides some proof of dark matter and relativity related BB BS; all tied up nicely with some pretty super silly string bow on top.

This study is related to counter argument against the maths glitch in the galaxy and using maths to do it.

 

For a start solar wind contradicts electric sun theory does it not..?

 

Dec. 11, 2007: NASA's fleet of THEMIS spacecraft, launched less than 8 months ago, has made three important discoveries about spectacular eruptions of Northern Lights called "substorms" and the source of their power. The discoveries include giant magnetic ropes that connect Earth's upper atmosphere to the Sun and explosions in the outskirts of Earth's magnetic field.

 

Where does all that energy come from? THEMIS may have found an answer:

"The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the Sun," says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras."

 

A "magnetic rope" is a twisted bundle of magnetic fields organized much like the twisted hemp of a mariner's rope. Spacecraft have detected hints of these ropes before, but a single spacecraft is insufficient to map their 3D structure. THEMIS's five satellites were able to perform the feat.

 

Powerful substorms, giant magnetic ropes, explosions that stop the solar wind in its tracks: "We have much more to learn about all these things," says Angelopoulos. "I can't wait to see what comes next."

 

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/11dec_themis/

 

You and N.A.S.A been sitting listening to old Arthur Eddington too long and not bothered to hear what other people at this party have started talking about; to the point that a language barrier has grown.

 

Mainstream magnetic flux tubes and inter galactic gas snakes have been blowing smoke in your eyes and clouding your vision.

 

The day of this writing, December 13, 2007, is the 140th anniversary of the birth of the Norwegian-born physicist Kristian Birkeland. It was Birkeland who correctly hypothesized in the early 20th century that electric currents from the Sun power the earth's auroras. For many decades, the scientific mainstream largely rejected Birkeland’s thesis, favoring instead the idea that Earth's magnetosphere is an impenetrable envelope, "squeezed" by the solar wind to induce auroral activity. Only when satellites detected the magnetic signatures of electric currents in the aurora in 1973 was Birkeland's hypothesis irrefutably validated -- though for another two decades many astronomers resisted the implications of this discovery.

 

In testing his ideas about the Earth/Sun connection, Birkeland built a vacuum chamber and placed a magnetized metal ball called a terrella inside it, representing the Earth. He observed how the terrella behaved in its artificial, electrically charged atmosphere. In addition to solving the riddle of Earth's auroras, Birkeland's electrical experiments also uncannily simulated planetary rings and the energetic displays of cometary jets. Yet a full century later, astronomers continue to be mystified by these phenomena in space.

 

More than a century after Birkeland's polar expedition to investigate the Northern Lights, mainstream scientists still express surprise or even astonishment when they observe the telltale signs of electrical circuitry connecting the earth and the Sun. That is because they still cling to theoretical models that conceptually exclude the possibility of electrical circuits in space -- even when their models are refuted by new observations that they characterize (and sometimes discard) as "impossible."

 

Magnetic "ropes"? This expression begs the question of how the fluid dynamics envisioned by NASA can explain a "rope-like" structure that twists and changes dynamically, and extends all the way from Earth back to the Sun. NASA scientists often use the phrase "flux ropes" to describe these twisted filamentary pathways traversed by charged particles. But to electrical engineers, such terminology reveals a deep confusion among astronomers struggling to comprehend unexpected electrical activity.

 

The "ropes" to which the investigators refer are commonly described in plasma Science as electrical "Birkeland currents," named after the aforementioned Kristian Birkeland. The rope-like structure is not just a curiosity; it is the structure taken by current flow due to the long-range attraction and short-range repulsion between current filaments. The "twisted magnetic fields" are simply the signature of the electric current flow. In plasma cosmology, these entwined plasma filaments act as transmission lines carrying "field-aligned" currents across interplanetary and interstellar space.

 

A layperson reading the NASA report might believe that the observation of these "ropes" is news -- as if they had never been seen before. But Birkeland currents have been the object of plasma research for more than a century. The term describes an electric current in a space plasma. It is this function of plasma filaments that inspires Electric Universe proponents to assert, "There are no isolated islands in space!" However, the term "Birkeland current" has never been included in the mainstream astronomical lexicon. Only in recent years have astronomers begrudgingly entertained the concept when evidence has allowed for no alternative.

 

The language used by the investigators reveals their determination to avoid describing obviously electrical displays in terms of electrical circuitry. Rather, they cling to ideas of mechanical "collisions" between magnetic structures -- without explaining how these structures can be magnetic in the absence of electricity -- somehow generating the observed energies. The NASA report describes the "magnetic ropes" (electrical Birkeland currents) observed by THEMIS as "twisted bundle(s) of magnetic fields organized much like the twisted hemp of a mariner's rope." This description is colorful and poetic, but does it amount to a scientific explanation? Left unanswered is, how are the ropes created, and why do they twist?

 

A double-layer consists of two parallel layers of opposite electrical charge. A catastrophic rise in voltage across the structure may result when flow is cut off. This causes the double-layer to "explode" -- as observed when a circuit breaker is opened incorrectly. The explosions THEMIS has observed are the predictable effects of instabilities in the interface of Earth’s plasma sheath, and the out-flowing charged particles of the solar wind.

 

Clarity can be gained on many space phenomena, including unpredictable outbursts of comets, supernovae, and coronal mass ejections, if astronomers will consider the well-documented dynamics of electrical double-layer explosions. The irony here is that by clinging to gravity-only dogma ("no electricity in space"!) -- a dogma codified before we had the tools of modern plasma science -- mainstream astronomy has obstructed the path of scientific progress pioneered by Kristian Birkeland a century ago.

 

http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/121707electricsun.htm

 

The stars receive their power from outside, not inside. Any nuclear reactions are taking place on the surface of the Sun and not in its core. The solar wind is an electric current connecting the Sun with its family of planets and with its galactic clan, so the 90-year-old theory of fusion firing the solar furnace needs to be reexamined.

 

It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds.

 

If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.

 

random irrelevant quotes

 

See, I don't see it like that. OK since you're the big brains on bread here; I'll fess up... I'm no Einstein; al-ja-bra doesn't mean sh*t to me and I could well be the retard sitting at the back of the class in both paradigms of thought, (EU & relativity) who seems to spend most of the time looking out the window lately...(☣===✈)

That said; I kinda try to adopt a policeman type approach to these things;...get statements, carry out investigation, weigh evidence and file reports, while mostly leaving the boys at the lab to do the tricky stuff and like your average beat bobby, I may not be very bright but I work hard.

 

Besides, this is Shetlink, where most would rather spend their time talking about people who like to run up walls or hear about scousers pissing on luggage, than worry about the parametric instabilities in their coupled cavities (whatever the hell that is) So the quotes are fun to use as attention grabbing bricks, to lob at your paradigms windows.

 

"The idea that gas can be heated until it gives off intense radiation (extreme ultraviolet and X-rays) without electrical inout, or that a "wave" of ionized particles does not comprise an electric current betrays adherence to outmoded theories despite observational evidence."

 

"ask a kid what a 'magnetic flux tube ball' is... you'll get a blank look

then.. ask a kid what a plasma ball is .... you'll get a smile and accurate description of a birkeland current."

 

“Today, nothing is more important to the future and credibility of science than liberation from the gravity-driven universe of prior theory. A mistaken supposition has not only prevented intelligent and sincere investigators from seeing what would otherwise be obvious, it has bred indifference to possibilities that could have inspired the sciences for decades.â€

 

makes me wonder if there's much point in this discussion

 

sup to you really. I didn't come to discuss how good you are at doing your maths homework.

To quote the mighty Combichrist..."Your God, sent us to destroy"

 

Einstein in the end will prove to be nothing but the party pooper; the real life and soul of the party was Tesla but they shut the door to those rooms and you, like many others (including myself for over 30 years) just wandered into the wrong one, assuming that was where the party was at.

 

Oh! While I'm here...

 

EU theory also does not explain CMB radiation.

 

The CMB is really just an emission from low-density charged particles of gas?

[Rivlins]

Coupling this along with the other thread and how everything seems to be just be a reference to youtube videos, sites with no scientific content or random irrelevant quotes. makes me wonder if there's much point in this discussion. Whatever I say you can simply copy paste an alternative theory without any knowledge of what I am saying or why the alternative theory is right. Effectively I have to prove every aspect of the big bang or disprove every aspect of EU while you can afford the luxury of not ever having to demonstrate you even understand either theory!.

 

[Brian86]

Amazingly, (+10^36) + (-10^36) = 0 < 1.

 

 

So no Peratt re-run? Surely someone can do it, hell I bet there's even bucket loads of free MHD type simulation code online to start everyone off.

 

The problem with quote wars is that it descends to a point that no one understands the stuff being quoted and posted and the only reply can be to google for a rebuttal and if none is found they lose the discussion. This of course means the actual quote content means nothing!

 

 

MOND does a better job of simulating galactic rotation curves than Peratts model, why shouldn't we follow that?

[Brian86]

I had another thought...

 

In that other thread you started on Einstein... You mentioned the comets and CME and the coincidence of the comets being there when CMEs were going off. Well let's have a look...

 

Number of sungrazing comets discovered between 1998 and 2007 (dates in your post) - ~1100 from the Kreutz sungrazer family (about 89% of all sungrazer comets).

 

From Keplers equation and using comet data we can work out that the comet will be in the close vicinity of the sun for about an hour.

 

CMEs happen once every 5 days during low solar activity and 3 times every day during high activity (depending on time during 11 year cycle). These are lower limits tho.

 

1998 - 2007 was mostly higher activity level, we'll go for 1 CME a day (lower than a rough average which would be around 1.5).

 

Let's also discard 90% of comets as they might be too small, might be moving away from sun, might be too far away, etc... (note that due to SOHOs fairly small field of vision, all comets found would likely be close to Sun so we can assume that nearly all will get close to the Sun in the time frame).

 

So this leaves us with ~100 comets.

 

If a comet is in the vicinity of the sun for 1/24 of a day, and there's 1 CME a day, it has a chance of 4.16666% of being around at the same time as a CME.

 

Of these 100 comets means we expect an average of 4 to be hanging around the Sun during a CME. 4 was the number from your post in the other thread. Magic.

 

 

I even used lower limits for everything, the actual number would be higher, I suppose the real question is...

 

If there is a link between comets and CME as EU theorists say, why only 4? Why don't we regularly see comets sungrazing during CME? Surely this should be happening all the time!?!