Let me be the first one to say, I told ya so.

Let me thank kieren and his supporters for confusing an already misunderstood topic and adding to the profesionality of this board.


Mike

quote: Original post by Isowave

Damn! why didn''t I get on this thread earlier? Now to argue any of my points on space-time and all that jibberish is futile. It would seem late and unnecessary. I agree with whoever said that acceleration in free fall is due to gravity, and not the curvature of space... Quantum mechanics will refine relativity... Either that or something entirely new will replace them both.

Acceleration in free fall is due the gravity, yes, but in general relativity the free fall is defined as no acceleration. There''s a difference between falling free and being accelerated e.g. in a car. In a car you feel being pressedagainst your seat, but imagine falling free with your car - you wouldn''t feel a force like in a "normal" accelerated car. What Einstein means with gravity is equal to acceleration is that in an unaccelerated gravitation field there are the same effects like in an accelerated system without gravity. On the surface of earth you fell a force and that''s your weight. So acceleration can be said to be relative to the gravitational field.


Visit our homepage: www.rarebyte.de.st

GA

kieran_j ''s CAR is obviously a sham. It was obvoiusly intended to provoke people and have some fun. Observe that a total of 16 pages have filled up on this topic.. With no result at all. I have read only the first page, but it is quite obvious from his posts that he is talking crap and therefore, safe to assume that all this discussion will lead to nothing.

I''m going to take this time to say that I''m not really stupid. At first, I was about to post some message about how ridiculous and stupid a compression theory such as kieren_j''s, but I decided to save the comments until later. Then I read some of his messages and thought ''hey, this could actually work.'' And I''ve followed this discussion the whole way through. But as I followed it more and more, it wasn''t the messages claiming kieren_j that he was wrong, I just got to thinking how it IS impossible to actually compress it. I just didn''t want to say anything, because I don''t like to switch horses mid-stream (heh, that''s from "Wag the Dog"). But now that he''s posted his scam message, I thought I''d take this opportunity to say, yes, I was deceived, but I figured it out myself that he was wrong. I''m impressed of myself that I thought it all out in my head, too! Take it easy fellas...



ColdfireV

Damm, kieren_j, you should''ve just gave up WAY before. Now, I don''t know how you can have your head up on any Programming boards man! I don''t think anyone will take you seriously...

Sorry that this has happened.
OldManDave.

Mutt! That was just mean. Good experience, though. Thanks, y''all.

I''ll do some coding on this over the summer, however. You''ve got me interested.


Lack

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

Well actually, I posted that infamous first message because thats what my compressor produced - then I found a little (!) problem in my code that meant instead of reading and writing all the bits of a byte, it was only using the first.
I didn''t really have the guts to say it went wrong like that...
I still feel really bad though.

---------------
kieren_j

I had some fun! I''ve always loved talking about physics !

Who was right and who was wrong now, huh ?
All of you who said it was possible should of thought about it a "bit" longer . As for me, im not going to worry about compression anymore. Winzip works fine for me now .

Oh and kieron_j, dont fuck with us like that. If you figured out there was a little bug like that that made a HUGE difference, you shoulda said something rather than bullshiting us farther.

Edited by - Zipster on 4/23/00 5:53:43 PM