I don't know how much more often I can state "nothing travels faster than c to any other frame". The part I made bold is almost identical to this statement I made: "However, my 4 seconds of flight would appear to have taken 4 years to any bystander on Earth.".
I've not once claimed that...
Again, you're applying a Universal FOR, in that you're assuming there's some Universal viewer that decrees when something is approaching light-speed. This simply isn't so. You'll never see anything move faster than light. However points in the Universe can move to any object at any velocity...
From your FOR nothing can exceed light-speed (c), but let's suppose an object is traveling in the same trajectory as your intended light-beam.
You would see the object traveling near c in the same trajectory as your light-beam. As such, the object would appear to you to be slowly outpaced by...
I'll quote the statement you made following this.
In this statement, you're applying a Universal FOR, in that you are stating C is some sort of speed limit. It isn't that way at all, because regardless your velocity, C is always C. You can be traveling at 1 million km/s and light will still...
.99C relative to what? The Earth? It's always irked me when people use a percentage of lightspeed as a velocity, when it's totally relative.
For your experiment though, let's suppose a spacecraft is orbiting the sun at 1 million km/s at a distance roughly 150 million km. It would take light...
Hi again Kenneth!
If you want, you can e-mail the pictures to me and I'll upload them to my website. I'll just shoot their address to you, and you can link them in your posts. Give a little bit, and I'll see if I can set up ftp access for you, and you can just start using my site without the...
It's complete. I ran into a little bit of a hangup with the display not working properly.
It turns out I hadn't set the inputs b2 and b3 as "0" on the 4bit adder within the "add 3" macro. This seems to have caused a glitch causing it to add 5, instead of just 3. No worries, as it was easily...
Well, I reformatted the circuit using the multiplexer, and it works great! It looks a lot cleaner in my opinion.
Here's some images.
http://173.212.220.214/img/projects/new-macro_high.png
This is the "Add 3 if equal to or greater than 5" macro set to 7, or 111. The multiplexer does it's...
The ROMs are being used as make-shift data inputs. I'm just using them each as a 1bit ROM. When the project is complete, they will be removed and the lines will be pinned as inputs.
Ah, thank you very much. This component seems to work quite well, and will more than adequately replace my two...
This is pretty much what I am trying to do. I'm still new to digital logic, but it seemed to me that simply preventing the information from reaching the OR gates would be a simple solution.
Is this what you are referring to? I am honestly unsure if this is even remotely close...
Hi again.
With your advice of the "add 3 if equal to 5 or greater" method, I decided to hash out the schematic.
The following image shows the macro I constructed with 100, or 4 as it's input.
"[URL
Click to Enlarge.[/URL]
The interrupt gate is disabled when it receives a "zero"...
I've been tinkering with Logical Circuit, and have devised a possible multiplier. It appears to function, and operates this way:
[SIZE="1"]. . . . . b1 b0
[SIZE="1"]. . . .x a1 a0
c3 c2 c1 c0
It will obviously have a maximum result of 1001 or 9 at this point...