[quote=science_man_88;186305]I think that unless we use up half the energy in the universe we will never move the universe to go through it like that as I think to travel the speed of light takes about 4.49 joules per kilogram mass which means to move the universe we would have to use up half the energy and hence half the mass of the universe in pure energy to travel the speed of light for long distances.[/quote]
Are you saying that instead of accelerating a relatively small body, (like a spaceship containing a human) we accelerate the entire universe, and that will make us travel the speed of light?
Your (lack of) understanding of, and (lack of) ability to make sense in, physics is matched only by your (lack of) understanding of, and (lack of) ability to make sense in math.

science man if its possible to find 48000 mersenne primes per year,with your "narrowing down" process.then you should be able to,with one computer,prove the next mersenne prime within a month or 2.people will not believe you until you either show a proof,or find a mersenne prime.so come back when you do this.

[QUOTE=Dougal;186315]science man if its possible to find 48000 mersenne primes per year,with your "narrowing down" process.then you should be able to,with one computer,prove the next mersenne prime within a month or 2.people will not believe you until you either show a proof,or find a mersenne prime.so come back when you do this.[/QUOTE]

I should add:
And if you can't do this, science man, then please do NOT come back.

No I thought I saw a part of this that talked of something like that.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;186286]I've tried to find a pattern in mersenne exponents, but most tell me I'm crazy. If I can find a pattern to aid the other pattern I can narrow what ones to check to at most 9 primes per mersenne prime possible exponent. want to try and help me figure it out ? Or do you have a fear of being hated.[/QUOTE]

I certainly don't have a fear of being hated. But the thing is, I don't misguide crazy people like yourself to think that they are sane.

Go on science man, give us a new Mersenne prime. When you have done that let us test it.

[QUOTE=10metreh;186292]You have no business to be writing prime-finding programs if you only have a Year 6 understanding of mathematics.[/QUOTE]Bullshit!

An excellent reason for writing prime-finding programs is to educate oneself. It was a component in my education on several occasions. I was about 12 years old the first time I implemented such a program, based on the SoE, and it was executed entirely on paper. I still have the notebook which contains the output.

Paul

you could get unlucky 10metreh,and not find a factor and have to perform an LL on it.

[QUOTE=xilman;186333]Bullshit!

An excellent reason for writing prime-finding programs is to educate oneself. It was a component in my education on several occasions. I was about 12 years old the first time I implemented such a program, based on the SoE, and it was executed entirely on paper. I still have the notebook which contains the output.

Paul[/QUOTE]

I was around 12 years old as well when I first began to learn bash. I was around 12-13 when I published my first calculator programs. One was in fact a program which computed the winding numbers of theoretical super strings, and that was my first program. So, I completely agree with xilman on that one.

[quote=Dougal;186334]you could get unlucky 10metreh,and not find a factor and have to perform an LL on it.[/quote]
Maybe he just means that GIMPS will eventually test it. :smile: Besides, in all likelihood he'll give us a composite number, none at all, or one way too huge to test even if we wanted to (like his previously-mentioned MM127, or MMMMM2 if you prefer :smile: ).

[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;186336]Maybe he just means that GIMPS will eventually test it. :smile: Besides, in all likelihood he'll give us a composite number, none at all, or one way too huge to test even if we wanted to.[/QUOTE]

In the event that he does give us a big number (beyond testing limits with ECPP or LL), we could use a probabilistic primality test. If the number is declared composite, then it is 100% true. If the number is declared prime, then it is most likely prime. In the event that he gives us a pseudoprime, it can be no larger than 2^64, which is well within testing limits.

This is described in further detail here:
[url]http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=185894&postcount=5[/url]

Of course, we would most likely have to code an M-R test, which is not hard to do; especially since a probabilistic primality test like OPQBT or RQFT (which has a worst case error estimate of much less than 1/4) is yet to be optimized and coded in full.