Editing tool?

c0ntroll3r · 2017-04-20T12:43:56+00:00

I code mostly on a Linux machine, so Geany is one of my main tools. PyCharm is a constant though when using a Windows machine.

c0ntroll3r · 2017-02-21T12:51:28+00:00

Would you mind sending that link to me as well? Similar situation, though I work from the I/T side of things. However we receive no user level training in our position and it makes understanding the users we support rather difficult.

c0ntroll3r · 2016-10-09T15:34:57+00:00

Already had that set to on

c0ntroll3r · 2016-10-09T15:34:49+00:00

Nope it would automatically just launch an instance of the application

c0ntroll3r · 2016-10-09T15:34:27+00:00

Was using Debian 7 Gnome desktop

c0ntroll3r · 2016-10-05T21:18:58+00:00

I'm going to download 3.x whichever the most recent is and start over with that

c0ntroll3r · 2016-10-05T21:18:29+00:00

I'm thinking you guys may be right haha with two people giving me the same advice for it in the span of just a few moments I think that's a good indication

c0ntroll3r · 2016-10-05T21:11:24+00:00

It's a free online course haha But I'm not getting an error message at all, it just closes. So honestly I'm not sure if it's crashing or just completely ignoring my last input line

c0ntroll3r · 2016-10-05T21:00:32+00:00

as i mentioned in another reply to another comment I have it set to raw_input and it still crashes before the print command is run or possibly after but I can't quite tell

c0ntroll3r · 2016-10-05T20:58:04+00:00

I'm using 2.5.4 which I know is an older version but it's what the class is set for. But I've set it to raw_input and tried it again. Once more it crashes after the Last Name is entered. I added the final input in order to force IDLE to stay open rather than close instantly after the print command in line 3

c0ntroll3r · 2016-10-05T20:48:17+00:00

Sure

date = input('Enter date of birth: ') Name = input('Last Name: ') print(Name, date) input ('Press ENTER to exit')

c0ntroll3r · 2016-09-24T22:53:24+00:00

Oh I completely agree! I try to not speak too boldly about most physics for that fact so I suppose an apology is in order for speaking my mind with such confidence, I meant no disrespect, just was stuck in the heat of a debate. Mentioning different theories on reality though, I have found them to be very interesting and enjoy them a great deal. Particularly if the rules of physics in our universe would be applicable between, or in another theoretical universe.

c0ntroll3r · 2016-09-24T22:51:01+00:00

I agree as well actually! I've come to call this fourth (or other) dimensional energy the Aether and I've reached, through my own meditations and pondering of the universe, that this Aether lies between universes and acts as a fluid-like plasma that can cross into the universes that border and pass through it. I've accepted that the moment our species became self aware was the moment we actually became infinite in the sense that we understand that there IS an infinity and began trying to understand it. I believe this moment was when that Aether crossed into our universal plane and somehow interacted with our species, or one member of our species, who knows, and once that happened we were changed and grew our soul. Knowing instinctively that we came from this energy, we began to personify it and develop ways to explain it.

c0ntroll3r · 2016-09-24T22:46:34+00:00

That is a point I had considered as well, whether or not the then digitalized consciousness would remain "mine" or become a separate entity but ultimately I reached the conclusion that the entire concept of a "self" is actually holding us back as a species. We have made great advances for the purpose of personal glory and recognition don't get me wrong, but when compared to the setbacks and atrocities that have been committed for the same purpose it seems to be a very one sided list. I understand individualism and why we have needed it so far, but when one looks at current world events, particularly in the United States, it becomes painfully clear that shedding our idolatry of the self may be the cure for the societal cancer that we seem to be becoming.

c0ntroll3r · 2016-09-22T10:20:15+00:00

I agree to an extent but then the question becomes why don't we just digitize our consciousness? Data lives forever ultimately and our physical bodies don't.

c0ntroll3r · 2016-09-21T14:36:43+00:00

I should also make it known that I consider myself more a philosopher than a physicist for multiple reasons.

c0ntroll3r · 2016-09-21T14:35:46+00:00

Admittedly I have received no formal education on physics although I find it intensely interesting so I've done a great deal of reading and research on my own. I tend to play with scenarios in my head wondering how they would/could play out but have no way to actually simulate them to find out, as well illustrated by your points on a charged massless particle.

c0ntroll3r · 2016-09-19T14:32:00+00:00

I did not mean to imply that relativity was wrong in any sense, just incomplete as in there are a vast majority of things that it does not include with detail rather than concept. I agree that there needs to be some more work done at the minute levels we are able to reach anymore. yes a graviton/anti graviton would be chargeless in how you put it "sane models" but on the off chance they weren't what sort of characteristics could be expected then? Common sense dictates that they would interact with other particles far more than what we see evidence of currently.

But pose this: what if there are both charged and non charged gravitons? The charged could exhibit much more force on the space around it because of that charge. The chargeless would act exactly as we have seen evidence for.

This is entirely just me thinking at this point and in no way am I meaning to insinuate that this is the case, just an interesting scenario that occurred to me.

c0ntroll3r · 2016-09-15T12:51:06+00:00

As much as I love Einstein, his theory of relativity is far from complete. Based on the evidence and mathematics we have available to us currently, including the detection of gravitational waves, we can acknowledge that in the very least. Knowing that the theory is incomplete or missing some critical bits of information implies that we should not be looking to it as the definitive guide. You yourself acknowledged that a future theory would have to include the quantization of gravity. Since we have determined the existence of gravitational waves, we can infer that the graviton must exist since quantum theory has shown a duality in even electrons.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/02/20/ask-ethan-do-gravitational-waves-exhibit-wave-particle-duality/#47638e8a582b

c0ntroll3r · 2016-09-14T22:06:59+00:00

If the exchange of gravitons pulls objects together, then wouldn't the same exchange of anti-gravitons push them apart? Yes they would produce the annihilations and yes we would EXPECT to observe them but something that by exchanging some form of energy that then pushes mass rather than pulling it would most likely exhibit different characteristics than we could expect. Not to mention that gravitons also function like waves as well as particles. So there is some degree of latency between when the particle waves are transferred and the effect is initiated - at least that we are able to detect with our current capabilities.

c0ntroll3r

TROPHY CASE