BlueCosmology

Again, you're comparing completely and utterly different systems. To solve single body newtonian gravity in general to exact precision requires precisely 1 iteration to find the solution for absolutely any timescale with an analytic solution that is not difficult to figure out. To solve n-body simulations (for anything other than very very special cases) to just reasonable precision requires billions of iterations, increasing linearly with timescale and factorially with n. Newton didn't even solve the 2-body problem (something that actually is completely solvable on pen and paper), let alone 3-body or higher (which is not).

Completely, completely different. They are very really anything more than one body simulations which takes many many orders of magnitude less computation. Infact, they don't take any computation at all, can be solved completely analytically.

How does this simulate gravity? Because I find it hard to believe that 4 body gravity with a time scale short enough to send mars out of the solar system between the times of your post can be simulated to any reasonable accuracy on a home computer.

If you forget evolutionary limitations of course it's possible. We already do communicate using radio. The question you're asking is whether or not it's possible for that to evolve in nature, ignoring evolutionary limitations is just ignoring your question.

My mistake then sorry, misinterpreted you.

I don't understand. Are you saying in response to me claiming that functions are not always differential in general, and giving an example, that your point was to say pretty much "Yeah but if you gave a different example that was differentiable then it would be differentiable"? If that is your point then, yes. Not all functions can't be differentiated. I don't see how in any way why you would bring that up.

I can't see how in any way at all that is out of context.

Nope, there is no solution to differentiating it. If you select any region c<x<d, if you decrease d-c, you'll find the region is exactly the same, even when taking the limit (d-c) -> 0.

Even just talking about differentiating a function, a solution is certainly not generally possible (e.g. the sum from n=0 to infinity of (a^n)*cos((b^n)*pi*x) with 0<a<1 and b being an odd integer, is not differentiable with respect to x at any point.

The vast vast majority. A differential equation that finding an analytical solution is actually even possible is in the minority. One of which it is easy to find one is even more rare. Typical example f''+sin(f)=0. Just write any random differential equation, chances are there will be no analytical solution.

Lol. Nope.

Lol... Solving a differential equation in general is no way in hell easier than making a polynomial approximation. Usually it isn't even possible to.

Not true at all. The energy of a body is only approximately E=Mc² at velocities much lower than the speed of light. Photons travel at the speed of light, hence it entirely does not apply at all.

Really depends on how active it is (assuming it even is radioactive). Lots of weak radioactive sources are stored just between two wafer thin pieces of glass stuck together. The dangers of radioactivity are very frequently exaggerated. Yes, radioactive sources can be incredibly dangerous. No, not all radioactive sources are even remotely dangerous.

Sorry, I think I must be misinterpreting you. Are you saying that you think if you have a flashlight pointed at you from a distance, that flashlight becomes dimmer if one gets turned on closer to you?

That isn't "the cold death" (there's no accepted cosmological term called that anyway, but I assume you meant the Big Freeze, also known as heat death) that's an intermediate step on the way to the end of the universe, for instance the big rip which you say in your third point. Conservation of energy. Hydrogen fuses to form helium and helium fuses and so on, releasing energy. Takes the same amount go go the other way around, every star uses up a lot of light elements that are needed to form a star. Newton's laws do not apply in the slightest when talking about cosmology, however even if they did Newton's laws say nothing remotely similar to that. I assume by "states that the universe retreating would have a force going forward at the same speed" you mean every action has an equal and opposite reaction (a force does not go at a speed). This does not in any way at all prevent things expanding from collapsing. One object would pull another object towards itself and vice versa via gravity, causing them both to be attracted to their center point. They cannot go in any direction except away from each other. It is spacetime that is expanding, the surface that they are on. Imagine dots on an elastic band, if you pull that elastic band all the dots will move away from each other as the surface expands.

Even if that were true (hint: it's not), in what way does that mean time either does not exist or is not natural? The movement of the Earth both exists and is natural. Also, you have a strange definition of proof. The entire extent to what you said is " I was told that time is just a measurement of distance of an orbit like 24 hours of time on earth is equivalent to I rotation is this true?". You haven't even attempted to make it plausible. Let alone attempt to justify it. Let alone actually justify it. Let alone prove it.

If you're on a bridge and there's a car going to crash into you, if you shoot a rocket and blow a hole in the bridge, the car will fall into the hole and you won't die. This is completely analogues to these shields, and with your line of reasoning shooting the rocket would kill you. There's a difference between just stopping something and diverting something.

That equation makes absolutely no sense. You're measuring distance in time squared per distance. Adding a force to a force distance squared per time squared. Taking a logarithm of a dimensional quantity. - - - Updated - - - [/TD] E=Mc² is the energy an object has in a reference frame where its momentum is 0, it is the minimum possible energy of an object. F=ma is not valid when just the mass and acceleration are known, mass must also be constant, and velocity <<c. It's also just known as the force not "potential force" s=ut+(1/2)at² and v²=u²+2as are only valid for constant acceleration and u<<c

Very unnecessary if the equation is known to the point that it is remotely useful, but yeah saying the dimensions would be slightly reasonable, unlike saying units.

You shouldn't really have units in a list of equations.

If a delta baryon has energy in eV of the last value in this thread, none will be reflected from an energy barrier of height this in eV over 12400 fermis.

It looks pretty spot on to scale. Look up what a log scale is.

1/137 is the coupling constant for electromagnetism (related to the probability of a charged particle emitting a photon).

Your arguments are useless because they don't exist. However, actual mathematical/scientific arguments are almost always more useful than the actual results/numerical answers they supply. Also, you have posted no facts whatsoever.