2024-01-11 00:42:44 <taxevasion2 > New to Forth, using FreeForth. I use read() syscall to read up to 4 bytes into a buffer, this includes the EOF 'character'. In this case it's 0x1A. If I write '@ .' after pressing 'a' it will show 2697. I wish to either push all bytes in my buffer to the stack after the 26, or remove the 26 from the buffer.
2024-01-11 03:15:49 <crc         > after the `read`, are you putting the buffer address on the stack?
2024-01-11 03:58:39 <taxevasion2 > crc: I was, yep. I don't need help anymore. In my specific case I could bitwise AND 0x00FF to get rid of the 26, and that was all I needed
2024-01-11 04:00:22 <MrMobius    > taxevasion2: see c@ to read a single byte
2024-01-11 18:24:32 <KipIngram   > This is quite good:
2024-01-11 18:26:40 <KipIngram   > Sorry - having trouble with the link.
2024-01-11 18:27:17 <KipIngram   > https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/113/1/34/8074129/mnras113-0034.pdf
2024-01-11 18:27:17 <user51      > Well, that's quite bad  :P
2024-01-11 18:27:22 <KipIngram   > :-)
2024-01-11 18:27:55 <KipIngram   > It's just a toy theory - approximate in that he uses a vector where a proper theory would use a tensor.  It's still pretty interesting, though.
2024-01-11 18:28:05 <KipIngram   > He promises a later paper doing it right that i'm going to try to find.
2024-01-11 18:29:39 <GeDaMo      > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_W._Sciama ?
2024-01-11 18:31:45 <GeDaMo      > Looks like that paper might be his PhD dissertation
2024-01-11 18:33:41 <GeDaMo      > Or at least related to it
2024-01-11 18:37:19 <KipIngram   > Oh, thanks!
2024-01-11 18:37:28 <GeDaMo      > "The second paper did not appear until 1969" https://publish.uwo.ca/~csmeenk2/files/SciamaDSBFinal.pdf
2024-01-11 18:37:41 <KipIngram   > Splendid.
2024-01-11 18:38:10 <KipIngram   > And of course there's likely something scientists don't like about it, since it's not what we're taught these days.
2024-01-11 18:38:52 <KipIngram   > But the notion that there's a preferred "no rotation" frame because of being at rest with respect to the "distribution of matter in thE UNIVERSE" is a lot more pleasing to me than for it to be "at rest relative to space."
2024-01-11 18:39:15 <KipIngram   > Ascribing that kind of significance to space itself is just completely counter to most modern thinking.
2024-01-11 18:40:54 <GeDaMo      > Looks like the paper is called "Generally covariant integral formulation of Einstein's field equations" https://academictree.org/physics/publications.php?pid=51799&searchstring=&showfilter=all
2024-01-11 18:44:27 <KipIngram   > Great.  I was able to track down a downloadable pdf, but I did have to download it - couldn't see it via a link.
2024-01-11 18:45:12 <KipIngram   > Found it via academia.edu.
2024-01-11 19:07:28 <KipIngram   > One interesting result in the first (approximate) paper is that it shows that gravity must be attractive (whereas general relativity would admit solutions with gravity either attractive or repulsive), and that matches up with particle physics, where it can be straightforwardly shown that gravity must be both a) universal (acts the same way on all other particles) and b) attractive.  So that's an interesting
2024-01-11 19:07:30 <KipIngram   > correspondence.
2024-01-11 19:09:34 <KipIngram   > In this second paper, I'm not working through every math step in detail, but I am finding that I can at least understand the outlines of what they're doing.  I discovered as I got into studying physics that I hadn't covered all of the math bases I really should have (for the purpose of studying physics) back in graduate school.  But the math here is stuff I deliberately undertook in grad school, so I'm "ok"
2024-01-11 19:09:36 <KipIngram   > so far.
2024-01-11 19:10:10 <KipIngram   > The stuff I failed to recognize the need for was more "discrete" stuff like group theory, topology, etc.
2024-01-11 19:10:28 <KipIngram   > I waded into the tensor stuff pretty well.