Arugela

I found a video form of euclids elements. Much easier to take in. 8) I can't read it anymore. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdofiH5HncU

That is the point. It's a known equilateral triangle because by definition you stuck a same sized circle on the intersect of the other circles. So that 2-3 circles is proof of an equilateral triangle. But how do you know/prove it's a perfect hexagon? You can put the center point on the new intersect on the circumference, but I don't think you have proof of the most important part at that juncture. The very last connecting point of the hexagon. It still needs further proof that it is actually a perfect hexagon. You need knowledge of pie and the calculation of a circumference to proof it's a perfect shape otherwise and that is not usable until developed independently. Else it could be infinitesimally off. You can go in either direction from the first circle on the middle circles circumference(and infinitely so.). But you don't know for certain that they connect when they visually appear to join at the last circle. You can only prove infinitely going around the circle in either direction independently, without further proof developed. But you never know if they actually connect. If you get to the sixth circle on the circumference you can choose either of the other circles intersection with the center circle as a starting point to try to prove this. But doing that you do not have proof that the other one intersects perfectly with the other or that the center points are actually the same from the perspective of the outer circles or there intersects between each other. And changing the starting intersection does the same thing in the other direction. Hence the problem. All you can do is say the drawing is close and appears to be linked at that point. But it is not proven. It's literally circular logic. You do not have to prove a hexagon has six sides. That is part of the definition. What you have to prove is that this is a hexagon to start with. And not what just appears to be dots that get really close to each other and look like a hexagon at the last intersection. It's that last relative intersection between the two outer circles and the inner circle you have to prove are literally on the exact same spot. As I said, current logic only proves the connection as you go around infinitely, but you never know if the things drawn over each other are every connecting from opposite direction. Or even the same direction. This is the natural test here. Logical test: If you draw three circles in this logic you get 3 equilateral triangles connected in a particular manner that looks like a half hexagon. It basically creates what appears to be a diameter. But how do you prove it's a diameter and what not just appears to be a straight line(AKA, 180degrees which have not yet been established nor that a equilateral triangle is 1/6th of a circle... I don't think.). There could be a simple proof here, but I'm too tired and missing it if so. Basically, the picture with 3 circles but draw the lines within only one circle. There might be a simple proof when you draw the second set of circles... I'm not sure if you can proof that larger cross area isn't cutting stuff in half and use that. Or did I miss it already. I'm not sure if the radius going around the outside proves the connection of either last dot. Of course I am really tired so... 8) Whatever I can't remember about proving it could be really simple. I'll have to read Euclid's elements again. It might jog my mind and help my brain think it out. It always takes me a while to refigure this out. Maybe I'm skipping over the obvious. Edit: Yea, it could be from things similar to proving that all angles in an equilateral triangle are the same among other things. Euclid dissects this more and several of his proofs go into more detail showing this is the case along with some other logic. But, I think, there are technically a few more bits of logic to fully prove this. I think some of those things are necessary to fully demonstrate the hexagon without any undefined presuppositions. He uses a proof just to establish that the angles of the triangle are the same. Or you can apply several of them to prove this.

But you have to prove that the distance between the points is actually the same as r. without logical proof you don't know for certain even if using an extended pattern that seems to show that they are the same. You don't know if they are exact or merely appear to be. If you use several of the euclid's elements proofs you can find a proof they are all exactly 6 and equal in pattern in a circle. Hence all shown disntances in the () pattern are r. But there is an initial problem because you cannot use visuals as proof. It can merely look exact if drawn properly. For all you know it's an infinitesimally small fraction off of a perfect hexagon. As I said, at minimum, there are several proofs from euclids elements that if combined proves logically and absolutely that it is a perfect hexagon. Then also it's known it is a bunch of equilateral triangles. etc, etc. Just to be clear, you know the initial circle and everything from it's center to it's circumference are r. But you don't know if the outside edges of the hexagon are exactly the same by any visual inspection. Any further drawing of a pattern, which looks like it is a hexagon for many reasons, is not known to be an exact on it's face. Nor can it be proven just by appearance. It requires further logic. Hence the greek love of triangles. Normally in sacred geometry, you start with a point and draw a circle with the same distance from a point. This is the circumference. This is the same as the definition in Euclid's Elements. After that you can take any point on that circles circumference and draw a new circle with that new circles center point on the circumference of the first circle with a radius of r. then you take an intersect of the two circumferences and draw another circle of the same manner. You repeat this until it goes all the way around. You get a visual, that if drawn well, seem to be exactly 6 circles. But you are left with a logical conundrum of if it is really exactly 6 circles or whether infinitely repeating the pattern PERFECTLY, would eventually create variations. Hence it's not exactly 6 circles but merely appears to be. You know the distance between the circumference of the first circle drawn on the circumference and the center point of the middle circle do in fact touch because both are drawn with radius r.(excluding visual anomalies from drawing.) All circles drawn on the circumference of circles drawn on the middle circle with radius r touch perfectly the center point of the middle circle. But does the circumference of the sixth circle with the center point on the middle circles circumference perfectly create an intersection with the circumference of the first circle drawn with the center point on the middle circle perfectly on the circumference of the middle circle?(This is assuming you kept drawn circle in the same direction around the middle circle until they collided.)

Oh, kinky! I don't remember seeing that growing up. 8) Although I probably did thinking about it. I don't think I got to proving the rectangles length... I don't remember If I proved the length of the arch from the radius in the flower pattern. If I did I knew the distance. You can also get it from Pythagoras theorem. But I don't know how to develop it off hand from the ground up. I know you can measure a half radius. I wonder if putting a half radius pattern over the normal one produces a proof. I may have used that at one point. Might help prove the arch vs radius or something similar. Overlaying patterns based on known distances in the pattern might produce easy proofs. it just helps to have really accurate drawing tools and logic to back it up properly.

I can't see what you posted. It's not showing up for me. Might be a linux thing.

I was doing this for fun along time ago but I can't remember how I found the proof for one thing. Proving that if you have a circle drawn around a circle and keep drawing another one at the intersect you get exactly 6 circle around a base circle without using any modern math. I was doing this to find an alternative basis for the unit circle basically and using only geometry to prove geometry. I found a proof with no modern math but I can't remember how I found it. I may have had to start a secondary pattern on the first and assume a few things until I proved the entire thing. The logic comes out a lot like a certain very old geometry proof book. I think it's greek in origin. It's fun to do and you can definetly proof the beginning of angles using this method for stuff that goes up to proving or developing a value for pie and the basics of triangles in what is basically a form of pre trig. Has anyone messed with this or know how to prove it. I can't remember and can't refigure it out. Partially because I lack reliable drawing tools to help do it atm and it's hard t improvise those with enough accuraccy to be able to use it as a visual aid beyond the first set or two of circles without. It's a fun way to try to prove geometry related things though. BTW, you cannot use the cirlces position as proof from a drawing. You have to prove it with base logic. In fact I may have used that old greek book to find the proof... Does anyone know what it is. I forget the name of the book. It uses worded logic to prove a bunch of very basic logical things in mathematics. I think it was written by Euclid. BTW, sacred geometry is and was a real subject. I think it is known to have been used in ancient religious temples. And if you start playing with it and basically use euclidian logic to prove things. It's potentially very convenient for the development of measurement methods in potentially a very logical or very practical and basic way. The issue is you may need to do some interesting drawings to help develop the logic and it's sometimes hard becuase of paper standards and lack of size. It would basically be a lot more convenient with a lot of space some sand and people moving stuff around a stick potentially. >< You basically have to prove that 6 circles go around a circle and then use logic to prove other easy things and find proofs working your way up the almost exact stuff Euclid went through, but in different orders(I think I had to combine a few of his proofs to prove it.). It's almost like it's related to an older form of things used as pre trig and possibly related to very old practical building methods. And possibly ways to develop means of early architecture as you could possibly with enough knowledge use it to lay a foundation accurately without a modern laser pointer or other tools. Assuming you don't use something like it with it. If not you could use it to help develop the logic to make the tools. Either way, it's very coincidental to euclidean logic and the unit circle in all forms. In fact euclidean logic, if you do this sufficiently, is basically giving the answers and a shorthand guide to how to prove these things with sacred geometry/pure geometry proofs. If no one has ever done this, you start out with basically what turns into a proven equilateral triangle that is then cut in half. You then use basic logic to start defining other base things found in basic geometry and math. I was trying to use it a pure geometric proof up to a certain point to prove things in trig/geometry with basically euclidean logic only. More specifically not using modern info until I developed it myself as a test to try to do it. It makes a very quick potential explanation as to Euclid/Greek obsession with triangles and possible relationship to Egyptian or other older schools of thought or mathematics if that is indeed the case. I found it. https://mathcs.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/toc.html Euclid's elements. 8) Still, has anyone tried to do this to prove pre trig and work up geometry? It's interesting to attempt. The patterns in sacred geometry basically make a grid to do the things in Euclid's elements. But you have to do a little of the leg work yourself. I wish I had a hard copy of this book(A good long lasting version at that.). I wonder when this sort of thing will start to disappear. The internet is not a long-standing form of preservation. As much as it would be nice if it was.

There is a reason forums didn't have this sort of thing originally. 1. It would turn into a form of censorship in one form or another. Including censorship via disapproval. This is originally an engineering environment. There is no room for that. Nor is there in any environment. 2. It has no purpose and is completely superficial. Those are basically the same thing though. They should really remove all such functions from forums and let arguments stand on their own. There is nothing good to come from a voting system on comments. The idea is disgusting on it's face. It's horrible anyone ever started adopting it. The only thing close to useful in this area is already common in forums. It's called a poll. Upvoting and the like also increases mindless thinking and similar things. Making people comment instead makes them think a little more and improves the environment. There is nothing to gain from it.

As far as the boat parts having signatures I think to technically be thorough you would have to say wether there were any replacable parts. they may have known about the serial numbers. So, hypothetically, you would have to look at if it be easy to switch those parts around and how long would it take? Which is part of one of the theories. Also there are real life examples of people being silenced by groups with enough force to do so. This is not uncommon in certain environments. It's not out of the question in any way. Especially in an environment with poor people already being abused for their labor. The pieces are easily already in place at that point it can be assumed it is possible. I don't think their consciences would necessarily be a problem. If they were in an abusive situation used for labor in general they may be more afraid for their lives. It would depend on the environment. If you have bigger things to worry about like that the conscience isn't necessarily a factor or even can be. They would likely come out later years or decades later. And if the situation is bad enough. Say, with something like a monarchy or company with enough experience it's known to some groups to keep things quite for a persons lifetime knowing that fact. It's a part of history in situation where a group has sufficient control and understanding of human behavior. I would say any monarchistic country is a potential place(even non monarchistic ones) at the beginning of the 19the century. It's just a matter of who and the situation they are in. As to it being a, "truth revealed," thing.(I'm not even sure which source that is refering too. I just grabbed some random stuff with examples in it.) That is irrelevant to the answer or any answer. People can say an answer and think it's false and it is still true. People can say the right answer and have insufficient info and be wrong. The proper way is to explore something completely until you get all information and understand the information completely. So what you stated is not scientific. It's the opposite. All logic/reasoning is simply the gathering of all information until all is present and understood absolutely at which point you have an answer. That is something they are apparently failing to teach in schools now. That is the only time an answer is known at which point the answer is in front of you and your logic actually dictates your conclusion properly. AKA reason dictates itself. Everything else is assumption short of complete information and a guaranteed wrong answer. It doesn't matter the source. Ever! I don't even pay attention to the source as it is completely irrelevant. Whoever is holding that combination of points at this point in time is just random and irrelevant. And it changes constantly. It's just an example of an idea. It's just a formulation of points. I just googled looking for an example and found the best looking one or whatever I could find even if I could only find barebones. The only way to ever get an answer is to completely explore an idea until you find out the truth. This only happens when you have collect all information and can understand it completely. So the only way is up/forward. It's very bad people do not understand this anymore and don't want to explore ideas like they used to. This is also what proper science is. It's the correct understanding of the pursuit of truth which is the same thing. It's simply learning something. The brain is basically just designed to gather as much info as possible for the ability to apply info and survive/function. All abilities of our brain(all forms of application) happen when enough info is present. It's is the same as the defintion of reason as it is the mechanical means our brain accomplishes it. It is the measure of proper understanding. One way to look at it is you are not trying to make the conclusion fit the reasoning. The proper view is you are trying to get your reasoning to fit the conclusion. The conclusion is the constant as it is reality. You are attempting to get all info so your reasoning fits. That, as just stated, is only when you do get all info and you do completely absolutely thoroughly understand the info. All reasoning is testing if it matches. And you can only do that one way. Examining it more and adding more information and being more thorough to see if it's still true. This is because the brain can only use up to a max of the info already in it to use in a thought or examine an idea. So, to learn more and add more is the only way to test an idea. And if you ever find more info and it contradicts the answer you find out you are wrong. This means it takes endless relentless examining of anything and everything to ever find the truth. Actually more importantly the ability and means to get all of the information in your brain and be able to understand it completely which is much harder. The entire lesson of history is how we change society and give ourselves the room to live without learning as much each generation. Hence changes in society and eventually rise and fall. Ebb and flow. IE being self sufficient and not relying on others to trade for something is literally relying on more information to exist. IE, if you trade for something you don't to some extent need to learn to do something to get what you want/need. If you don't trade you absolutely have to. That is also the same as the tortoise and the hair. The tortoise is where all info comes from originally. It's self sufficiency/mass of info and the hair is, "given information," that increases over time as you rely on it increasingly. Hair stops because of lack of context. Tortoise continues on slowly because of more info to start the next thing. These are the two factors in all human behaviour. think if you have to learn something yourself from experience. The only way to get the answer is to get enough info and eventually you learn something. You also gather massive amount of info in all other direction trying to do this. Hence you have more info at each step. This is how people start out and survive in self sufficient societies or infrastructures. The haire is when you start giving info as you tend to rely on it. and we do over time and over generations. However many it takes to increase it relatively. You tend to not learn as much or have to stop to get more info and are limited because of lack of context. Because you got the info in a given form and only understand it based on your current understanding which is the context of other info in your brain. Eventually you loose info or context and can't apply it to other subjects and have to stop as you lack information for broader application. I otherwords you have to rest.

We are talking england. Maybe they had enough oomph to stop it. Or if it was embarrasing enough to overall view of english trade maybe the crown stepped in or something. Enough political clout can make people quiet potentially.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/749712/titanic-fire-theory-channel-4-titanic-documentary http://www.businessinsider.com/titanic-sinking-conspiracy-theories-2018-4#the-ship-was-attacked-by-a-u-boat-3 https://www.theodysseyonline.com/titanic-sinking-greatest-insurance-fraud-scheme Not sure if this should be here or in the lounge. It could be a scientific discussion if the damage can be analysed. I was reading this. There are two theories I've seen at the same time. This fire and the theory it was switched with the olympic and sunk for insurance or something. I have no idea how credible either of these are. But if the fire theory is credible(as far as the damage location.) doesn't that make it really easy to assume the switch theory is also. I'm pretty sure the photos show(or the articles describe) the so called black spot is the same spot that the Olympic was hit. It's potentially a bit coincidental. It would seem easier to think they switched the olympic and titanic if the fire location is true and is the same location as the Olympics ramming damage. As opposed to them getting damage in the same spot near the same time. Especially with their supposed money problems and the stated fault on the Olympics side resulting in them not getting insurance for the repairs. Assuming that is true. Does anyone know anything about boats(or metalergy.). Is it possible the titanics sinking was somehow an insurance thing?

I was trying to find a way to fix it just for the sake of doing it. More the challenge to find a way to do it. And I was hoping to fix it with something around me to save time. But, yes, I probably need to buy a new cheap multimeter to start testing stuff. Or do they sell those little metal things somewhere? Does anyone know what they are called. I'm not even sure to look them up.

I lost two of those internal pins. They act as connectors on the wheel. I need to find replacements for them. I tried to solder the one i have back together, as it split in two physically from accidental pressure. But I could not get it to hold and be able to fit back on the device correctly.

Probably an odd place to ask this but you never know. I'm figuring there's a good chance someone will know this. 8) I have a cable box with various audio outputs. I have an RCA white/red male to 3.5mm jack female and a male to male normal fairly long 3.5mm cord. I have a computer. I have an asus monitor with picture i picture, but no way to make both the computers hdmi/displayport sound and the pip input give sound to the in monitor speakers because asus is a bunch of cheapasses. You can get sound to both but must manually change the sound input/output direction and it mutes one to play the other. So I can mute PIP and listen to the computer or listen to the computer and mute the pip. Oh joy!! technology at it's finest. BTW, the sound works. Just not at the same time.(IE no simultaneous sources on the monitors end.) What I'm trying to do i use the RCA jack to get sound into the computer then send it through the display port in the same cord so the problem goes away in essence.. Aside from muting the sound.. (this obviously might be easier to just send the output from the cable box to another speaker source in the end.) Either way, I'm using an RCA male to 3.5mm female jack to send it to the normal 3.5mm sound sources. I have lots of them. My problem is trying to recognize it and then get it through the speakers like other sound. Is there a lack of ability by default in a pc. Has anyone tried this. I'm probably missing something simple. (this is just dawning on me) I've was sticking into the green jack but I keep having trouble thinking if it's input or output. I'm using linux with mate desktop. I have the pulse audio software stuff and whatever mate has to control the hardware inputs and outputs. I think I don't even have the correct connection atm.. I keep thinking the normal green jack is input when I think it's output as the box is going to the computer... I'm a bit curious though if anyone has dealt with this as a heads up type of thing and knows if there is some type of bock that ultimately stops this. I basically just need the sound to go out the display port with the normal sound from my video card. trying to get the right source and software settings make my head spin. 8) I think I have to attach to a line in.. But can it send out after through another source like the display port sound? Do I need special software to spit the line input out another source? Edit: I got it plugged into the line input correctly in the back of my computer. It says in the settings it's plugged in.(thank god.) My output is set to my display port like it normally is. I'm assuming i need software to control the sound and there is no dead capabilities in normal sound software as it's not auto giving me a source and the volume that should be comming from my cable box sound. Is there some nice tv software for linux with a gui that can control sound inputs and send it to the display port? I only need the sound controls at this point. The video goes to the hdmi source in the monitor. I can go full screen and the sound changes. But the PIP never carries sound under any circumstances. Or do I need to use microphone instead of line input... Edit: I got it to work to some degree. Apparently you need to activate loopback in the alsamixer(mine was disabled.). Then set the auto in alsamixer input to the correct volume. Now I just need to figure out how to control the sound indepenently. 8) I currently have it hooked into my microphone in. I may move it to my line input and see if that works. Then I can leave the microphone line free. I also have this weird 2.5mm jack that looks like the other end is an rf receiver... I wonder if I could make it work with the univeral remote and make it control the volume for the line input or something. Or anything that gives easy control of the tv volume independent of the other sound. Edit: I have it working and the sound is set to the base volume I want. Now I am trying to figure out how to set a keybind for the audio. Trying this: Xbindkeys I have three virtually unused buttons for, Internet, Email, and Search I can bind the volume up, down, and mute too if I can get it to work. It will control the Line input in alsamixer if it works correctly. I found this but I'm not sure if it will allow control with different keys than the normal master volume. Let alone setting it to line input or microphone etc. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ALSA#Keyboard_volume_control I can control the master volume with it but it doesn't seem to work with Line or other volumes. That or I haven't found a way to make it reference the other channels correctly. Working code: "amixer set Master toggle" Mod2 + XF86HomePage Not working code: "amixer set Line toggle" Mod2 + XF86HomePage I've been playing with this more and I get the feeling it's a limitation in amixer or pactl. It seems to only allow control of the Master atm. I'm not sure why though. All information seems to indicate I should be able to use Amixer to control the other channels like surround and front. Not sure what it is about my system that doesn't allow this.

I forgot the other option... 8) Does anyone know which contacts can be missing to allow voltage readings or how many can be missing. I only need voltage readings! >< I'm still in the process of trying to figure this out. I think all of those multimeters are literally using the same PCB board cut differently and the wheel is identical along with the tracing. I think I lost one years ago and it still worked because it wasn't needed for what I was using it for. But I just broke a second one and now it's not working properly for voltage readings. Still trying to figure out which connections must exist for basic non powered readings to look for a short in a few things real quick. 8d Yes, it is a very specific material and shape. They are based on tension. They have just enough to take the force of the ball bearings and the plastic ridges being pushed while turning the wheel and to hold themselves onto the plastic bits which also use tension. And the spacing to connect is very thing without creating a short or cross. Every time the wheel turns it is literally on a new mini pad. So, it cannot change position. Unless I can think of something clever. I don't know how easy it would be to fabricate one. I also think it needs a minimum of 6 to work.. Maybe all 7.

I didn't think about that. I wonder if I can tin tinfoil or use tinfoil to secure or make a new contact. I just need to make one out of something cheap. And I think I need to make two of them which could be interesting. As I split one in two accidentally down the middle. Maybe I can find a way to make it into two seperate contacts. It just needs to be strong enough to take the abuse of turning the knob... Maybe If I press tin foil really hard and make a sudo solid contact and mold it. Might be a fun project.

Not sure if this should go here or in the lounge. It's technically science/engineering. I accidentally put too much pressure on a little copper part within my multimeter. It is a part that makes a connection between the wheel/setting selector and the board while putting it back together. It split the copper in half at both ends and no longer can act as a connector reducing proper function of the multi meter from what I can tell. It's literally beeping constantly when set to voltage.. Not sure what that even means as I'm new to this sort of things. Here is a vid showing different multimeter with the exact same wheel and copper peices. I'm trying to either figure out a way to repair(solder isn't working. I have cheap solder.) replace or find an alternative to these pieces. I think I"m actually missing two in this case. I actually need to figure out how many it should have and which slots it should be in. I'm assuming the wheel is designed for varying multimeter and they stuck in the ones in the correct place or something. I tried to fix the copper by using solder to reconnect it, but I was having difficulty getting it to resit. And if I used less solder it would not stay together. Then I burned myself slightly on the iron and stopped... Might try again later. I have a craftsman autoranging multimeter 82175. Vid showing part: Starting the video will put you a few seconds before it shows the inside of the wheel selector. There are 7 of them on this multimeter. 4 on one side and 3 on the other. I think it's the same configuration mine originally had. Pic:

Is there a way to do what you normally do in linux and just add a repository for like arch linux and add stuff. That would be nice. Or are they too different? I haven't found anything resembling a terminal yet. 8d I've been looking though. The hides it on us! And, yes, it is a kindle fire. I wasn't sure at first. Although it said right in the front screen. Put that one together. >< I'm looking up stuff on the google play store and stuff. I just find it sad they don't make these devices more generally useful. It would be worth a lot more to the customer. They would be pretty darn handy as they are much more portable than a laptop and fun to play with and setup for custom stuff. They would be fantastic co computers as they have monitors. Just have a bunch of them next to your computer with possible multimonitor setups and/or co proccesing. 8) Of course there isn't good support atm for multi gpu and the like either atm which is sad. Stuff is lagging behind to much. They should hire some good engineers to just write it and get it out of the way. Tell me you wouldn't want a mini multi monitor setup with your hand helds! Small side screens would be very functional(Especially with a touch screen.) as they save space on a physical desktop. And with independent sound processing could be insanely useful. Could you get away with 4k because of the native gpus without needing to use a bigger main GPU. AKA 4k and higher resolution with multiple monitors on the fly? Plus the idea of networking for gaming with indivual monitors. Just need a connectable set of control devices or something. All of these companies are severally limiting themselves. It is very disturbing these technologies aren't taking their traditional course and being put to the maximum amount of uses. That means things aren't as productive as they could or should be. Edit: I'm assuming there is no straight forward simple way just to add repositories and install normal linux software.. FYI, if you can't tell, I don't use hand held devices like this normally. 8D

What is wrong with watching videos. I like how the plane looks. I was hoping it could help improve my in game planes. It sparks ideas potentially. Having wing sweeps and stuff added might help with efficiency and allow me to get more margins on my planes. And, technically, they do. If you only mean earth, they just need to get it in orbit and they can make it hypothetically land anywhere. 8)

I just got a free kindle from someone. I have not registered with amazon and don't really want to. I got the wifi set up and went to VRV and crunchyroll etc to watch some anime... I noticed you can't watch it despite the webbrowser. Are they supposed to be able to block video sights if you are not registered with Amazon..? Anyone else deal with these? Does this do this to everyone? Edit: Ok apparently crunchroll is working(besides a lack of flash player) but VRV isn't. Have they had problems with credentials or do some sites get blocked by kindles?! I can access it last I tested with my desktop but not the kindle. Or is it a problem with flash... It's a shame you have to register with amazon to even use the store.. It needs a free repository like in normal linux for basic stuff. Then make the store seperate for payed items. I would think they would sell more kindles and possibly software if they were nicer to the customer and didn't try to force things. Unless the software is that bad. But that should still increase people overall likeliness to try buying apps...

There is a ratio of LF to OX. You don't need to use estimates. Oxidizer = 0.55 (11/20) LF = 0.45 (9/20) FYI, 9+11=20=denominator. If you can use that to determine the total weight of LF+OX combos for calculating delta V. Example: 550 OX = 550 / 0.55 = 1000 LF+OX * 0.45 = 450 LF 1000 LF+OX = 1000 * 0.005 = 5 tons. LF and OX = 0.005 tons per unit. Mono = 0.004 tons per unit Ore = 0.01 tons per unit. Reverse Example: 450LF / 0.45 = 1000 LF+OX * 0.55 = 550 OX etc. Determine whichever thing you need from this. Use the total LF+OX as your weight value. Then use the time to burn and either oxidizer or lf and it's total consumption per second to determine burn time etc. If you use Nervs with your rocket engines you can use burn times or calculate Ox seperately and add the Lf time on top or whatever is convenient. Overall weights are for delta V. There are many ways to calculate it. Electricity has weight based on how much the batteries weight, but I forget the numbers. It's either 0.05 or something. Divide the weight by the capacity. I think it's the same all around. You can use this for xeno base stuff. It can be used to calculate obtainable delta V based on efficiency of the solar panels and their weight to gain or how much you can get from generators etc effectively overall. That ratio is, btw, why the original smallest tanks in the game were 9 LF to 11 OX. It was to demonstrate the ratio partially. This is very basic algebra. And fractions are more accurate. They force you to use exact values. IT IS SUPEEEERRRIIIIOR!!!! 8D That and geometry for the ability to represent irrational numbers!! 8d Geometry is ratios... So it is all SUPEERRRRIIOOORRR!!

I was watching a youtube video about the supposed su-41. I noticed it's wings are similar to the fuel filled ones in the game. The difference is it is angled forward a bit in essence. I was wondering if doing that to the wings in game actually has effect at high speeds on the stuff in game? I'm kind of assuming it does but is the logic in the game to take account the air surface in any direction. Or at least the forward direction to take account the effects at high speeds? BTW, what is the plane on that front pic. It is really cool looking. I wish we had wings in game we could swivvle in multiple directions. Both sweepable back and forth and up and down like that. I would use those all over to adjust for altitude etc. 8) Maybe they could make an in game tool to allow us to draw lines on the current parts to cut them and give them hinges. 8) Then there is this. I wanted to look at the plane more but it's a gimp image for clickbaiting sadly... 8\ Might help with my flying backwards from orbit idea.

I came up with another potential tip. I use somewhat clay soil mixed with random left over potting mix. If this is part of why it works and it helps keep the oxygen from moving and removing the water. If you wanted to use a less clay dirt for you could possibly get clay potting soil or a clay like plant base material and place it on the top to slow down the air movement. Possibly put holes in it or do something so that a greenhouse on top can move the moisture up. Or it may help to keep the water in indefinetely. I haven't tried it yet. But it could give more options. You could also put a plant on top if it help on top of clay or other substance that can act as food and then grow a moss on top of it around the plant. This could help seal in water. Assuming there are no other problems resulting in doing something like that.

They were talking about naming the planets. There are 7 of them. So it's convenient. then I considered naming the sun white after snow white. This is then funnier if it's not a white star because people will refer to it as the, "white star," when it's not a white star. If it is actually a white star then it is highly appropriate. And having just looked it up it is, "an ultra cool red Dwarf star!" >< So, it's a fitting name with a bit of irony and humor attached. 8) https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2015/12/21/names-of-the-seven-dwarfs/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Dwarfs#Names https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White_and_the_Seven_Dwarfs_(1912_play) So, name them: Star: White (AKA snow white, aka Jessie Graham White, and pretend snow white got her hair died red.) Planets: Doc, Grumpy, Happy, Sleepy, Bashful, Sneezy, and Dopey Or Planets: Blick, Flick, Glick, Plick, Snick, Whick, and Quee <- this one would go with the jessie graham white reference. Or Planets: Huckpack, Naseweis, Packe, Pick, Puck, Purzelbaum, and Rumpelbold Or Planets: Axelrod, Bartholomew, Cornelius, Dexter, Eustace, Ferdinand, and George <- It has george as a name. You can't loose there! >< etc.... There even appears to be an anime with snow white with red hair. It's seems to be called snow white with the red hair... Go figure! And if you want too add more humore you could say, "it's a trapist..." At which point you could go for hermaphradite and look for, "star,' fish names and references. Or just pretend it's a crossdressing snow white... Or that the guy name white(Jessie Graham White, Winthrop Ames) is playing the female role. Which would work as a playwright reference! 8) Did he every play snow white in his plays? It would work on multiple levels then. lol

What about the 7 dwarfs? Might be funnier. 8) Then you could call the sun, "white," to confuse everyone if it's not a white star. 8)

Is that bug why my cargo ship is getting drag in one odd usually asymmetrical place? I've been having super drag from certain cargo and couldn't figure out how to resolve it to do my 1k cargo to orbit attempt. BTW, my bug creates another odd problem(or did in 1.4.2.x) when combined with the aero info... Nobody has looked at it yet but it's an odd bug. Not sure if it's one people are aware of or not. BTW, if any normal nodes are not covered it will create super drag even if they are hidden in another item. I've dealt with that before. Treat them as if they were exposed to air. Although that does not appear to be the issue there. Could it be something as stupid as those outside object occluding into the cargo. I'm assuming not but you who knows. I had some of that with my ship but it didn't seem to make a difference. I actually got rid of the drag on mine by redoing the parts fresh. But then any modification again reintroduces it easily... It's odd. I was wondering if it's too touchy about placement of larger items or positions between connected cargo containers, but I have a feeling that is not the case. It does seem sudo related to when you don't properly hold down your cargo and it wobbles. Maybe it's a bug related to that. Kerbels are wobbly in chairs if I remember right. Did salvager leave? He may have seen me do a bug report on the forums and bolted for it! >< He hates my large ships. (I've been reducing the parts counts on them by removing struts and flying in cheat mode plus making them more efficient btw.) I also wondered if it was in any way introduced by using the copy function. But I'm assuming you did not do that on your ship. The other culprit was possible symmetry modes. Edit: If these bugs are interrelated I noticed one oddity. If you know which side a symmetrical cargo bay has the drag problem, you can take it off replace it again and it will always be on the opposite side it was placed on. So you can make it go where you want. some times it was on both sides though, but I didn't figure out how to make that happen.