milo, people in orbit are "freely falling": The acceleration results of the curvature of the space-time. And on freely falling systems most time passes.

Visit our homepage: www.rarebyte.de.st

GA

0.9 recurring i.e. 0.9999999999999 going on forever is exactly equal to 1. There is a formal proof, but I do not have time to go through with it so here is the informal proof:

x = 0.999999....

*10

10x = 9.9999999...

-x

9x = 9

/9

x = 1

therefore x = 1 and x = 0.9999.....
so 1 = 0.9999.... recurring. This was on a maths website somewhere.

Hey if you think this compression is impossible check this out:

http://www.terraserver.com

It has pictures of Area 51.

Brutes!

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster

AGAIN,

there IS a way to reach light speed and more !

YOU ALL ARE RIGHT WHEN YOU SAY, THAT SOMETHING THAT HAS A MASS CANT REACH LIGHT SPEED !

so let me explain:

Light has no mass, right ? Thats why it reaches Light speed. As you said, only things with no mass can reach light speed. Light has no mass. If a spaceship would have no mass, would it then be possible to reach lightspeed ??
YES !
i already said it before. They now developed a way to make somethings mass == 0 IE it has no gravity. I will now give you the official homepage of the experiment. Trust me this IS true because it has been researched at an brasilian university. Universities would never post such scripts on their site, if they arent real.

here is a picture from that homepage, that shows how a spaceships of this type could look-alike:


the official homepage can be found here:
http://www.elo.com.br/~deaquino/

Please believe me, there will be ways to reach atleast lightspead, or more.

Light has no mass so it can reach light speed, but not more. There are effects like gravitation lenses because light is inside our space-time which is deformed by gravitation. But there are no such effects that photons could block the gravitation field, so you can''t make gravitation blockage with photons.

Visit our homepage: www.rarebyte.de.st

GA

Pardon that double post up above. I got fumbly fingers.

ga wrote:
-milo, people in orbit are "freely falling": The acceleration results of the curvature of the space-time. And on freely falling systems most time passes.-

Yes, people in orbit are in free fall, but so is skydiver or me when I jump out the window from reading this thread too much.

No, the acceleration is due to gravity. Mass has gravity and an effect on the space-time continuum. Whether gravity is the warping of space-time continuum or is the warping space-time continuum is still under debate. They are certainly very closely related and pretty interchangeable in the mathematics. I tend to believe that they are the same because it makes a nice symmetry with the fact that matter and energy are the same thing. There is a reason that a current hot bed of quantum physics and astrophysics is the search for gravitons (hypothesized gravity particles) and gravity waves (the medium for the wave is the space-time continuum).

Your last sentence is not quite English. If your are attempting to restate your previous point that I was questioning (ga wrote: -People in orbit are not accelerated because acceleration is relative to the gravitational field. We are accelerated on earth with 9.81 m/s^2. During the start and the landing time goes slower in the space ship, but while it''s in an orbit time goes faster than on earth.-) you are still incorrect. Acceleration is accelration so people in orbit are accelerating. They just aren''t doing so under their own power.

Unless you''ve actually done the math you are guessing about the time effects during launch, too. Remember as the spaceship climbs out of the gravity well relativity says time passes faster and faster for the ship compared to the surface. The acceleration caused by the rocket thrust has the opposite effect and varies with the variation of thrust during the flight to orbit. You''d have to do the math to determine which is greater (and when).

Mike Roberts
aka milo
mlbobs@telocity.com

quote:
So you say, looking at the file with a different byte/window size can create an imbalance in patterns. But just above you said they didn't have enough patterns to compress. And if you have extra repetitions of something, how do you not agree that it makes a difference in how well it can be compressed?

Yes, I believe that it may make the difference of saving a few bytes in the end. And that is if you are lucky.

quote:
Of course not. But one can be used inside the other, also.

You agree that one algorith cannot compress all files, and that many algorithms put together are still one algorithm. But you still think that you can compress any file of a certian (still undertermined) length???

quote:
I think it's possible with data massage and such.

You are entitleted to your opinion, I just ask you don't confuse others by stating it as a fact.

quote:
Of what words? You don't think I do as the program would?

I didn't mean to offend you here. Of course you would, I just think you are missing something. For example, Communism looks really good on paper, but it would never work in real life. Da Vinci had many things that looked good on paper, but real life implementations didn't happen.
I hope you do attempt to implemenet it and learn something in the process.

quote:
There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding his demo. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't his original demo using six steps and data massage and all that, and this other demo he's just putting out to show the 4-16-4 concept?

I thought the Huffman was to prove a point, and the other one he was saving.

There is misunderstanding regarding everything he has said so far. I'm reading it this way "My real demo didn't work at all so I implemented a huffman that compresses text files well." As I mentioned earlier, if his algorithm compreses MP3's by 2% I would be completely amazed.

Mike


Edited by - Vetinari on 4/20/00 1:50:28 PM

quote: Original post by milo

Pardon that double post up above. I got fumbly fingers.

ga wrote:
-milo, people in orbit are "freely falling": The acceleration results of the curvature of the space-time. And on freely falling systems most time passes.-

Yes, people in orbit are in free fall, but so is skydiver or me when I jump out the window from reading this thread too much.

No, the acceleration is due to gravity. Mass has gravity and an effect on the space-time continuum. Whether gravity is the warping of space-time continuum or is the warping space-time continuum is still under debate. They are certainly very closely related and pretty interchangeable in the mathematics. I tend to believe that they are the same because it makes a nice symmetry with the fact that matter and energy are the same thing. There is a reason that a current hot bed of quantum physics and astrophysics is the search for gravitons (hypothesized gravity particles) and gravity waves (the medium for the wave is the space-time continuum).

Your last sentence is not quite English. If your are attempting to restate your previous point that I was questioning (ga wrote: -People in orbit are not accelerated because acceleration is relative to the gravitational field. We are accelerated on earth with 9.81 m/s^2. During the start and the landing time goes slower in the space ship, but while it''s in an orbit time goes faster than on earth.-) you are still incorrect. Acceleration is accelration so people in orbit are accelerating. They just aren''t doing so under their own power.

Unless you''ve actually done the math you are guessing about the time effects during launch, too. Remember as the spaceship climbs out of the gravity well relativity says time passes faster and faster for the ship compared to the surface. The acceleration caused by the rocket thrust has the opposite effect and varies with the variation of thrust during the flight to orbit. You''d have to do the math to determine which is greater (and when).

Mike Roberts
aka milo
mlbobs@telocity.com

In special relativity there are inertial systems, in general relativity they''re substituted by freely falling systems. So you''re nearly in free fall when you jump out of the window. And theorie of relativity says that most time passes on freely falling systems relative to not freely falling ones. So you''ll stay younger not jumping out of the window. You can''t determine if you''re in free fall or if there''s no gravitation field and you''re not accelerating, excepts with the tidal forces.

Visit our homepage: www.rarebyte.de.st

GA

quote: Original post by Vetinari

Yes, I believe that it may make the difference of saving a few bytes in the end. And that is if you are lucky.

So if you can do it over and over, eventually you''ll save quite a bit, correct?

quote:

You agree that one algorith cannot compress all files, and that many algorithms put together are still one algorithm. But you still think that you can compress any file of a certian (still undertermined) length???

Perhaps. Where''s ga with his arj count?

quote:

You are entitleted to your opinion, I just ask you don''t confuse others by stating it as a fact.

Sorry, I''ll try not to do that. I think I''ve had it drummed into me from high school essay writing that you never wishy-washy, state everything as a fact in your arguments. It may make it more effective, but it could be lying, maybe, so I''ll have to watch what I say.

quote:

I didn''t mean to offend you here. Of course you would, I just think you are missing something. For example, Communism looks really good on paper, but it would never work in real life. Da Vinci had many things that looked good on paper, but real life implementations didn''t happen.
I hope you do attempt to implemenet it and learn something in the process.

With me, in this single case anyway, the paper works like the program.

I didn''t have as much time today to try the bit masking and stuff, but I was able to take a completely random 72 bits, and mask, window, compress, window, and compress again to save I think it was 4 bits overall. But I didn''t have time to try every method or go any further with it.


Lack

Christianity, Creation, metric, Dvorak, and BeOS for all!

Lack, I''ve counted all bit patterns with the lengths 1 - 12 of a ca. 2.5 MB arj file. My program was written for another purpose, it returns the 20 biggest frequencies (I tested my old computer and it took quite a long time there):
1292324 1
1225325 0
670724 11
621599 10
621593 01
603732 00
350731 111
319993 110
319984 011
313246 101
308359 001
308353 100
301608 010
295373 000
182458 1111
168273 1110
168270 0111
162484 1101
162388 0011
158508 1001

Overlapping patterns are counted, too.
It''s not completely random, the frequencies of the 3 bit patterns 000 and 111 differ about 1/6, but that''s not for the most-frequent-word compression.

Visit our homepage: www.rarebyte.de.st

GA

quote:
So if you can do it over and over, eventually you''ll save quite a bit, correct?

Sorry, I wasn''t clear. I was talking about a file that was compressable, not a file that''s already been compressed.

quote:
Perhaps. Where''s ga with his arj count?

So we agree on this or not?

quote:
With me, in this single case anyway, the paper works like the program.

I didn''t have as much time today to try the bit masking and stuff, but I was able to take a completely random 72 bits, and mask, window, compress, window, and compress again to save I think it was 4 bits overall. But I didn''t have time to try every method or go any further with it.

We''ll see; keep us updated. Good luck on it.


Mike