Jump to content

Strange

Moderators
  • Content Count

    25528
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    133

Everything posted by Strange

  1. And it only uses the first link, not the “best” so it only specifies an upper bound
  2. IDoNotCare has been suspended for two weeks for hijacking threads with nonsensical posts and then arguing about it. And if they choose not to come back? I do not care
  3. Strange

    Today I Learned

    Indeed. There is nothing special about Charlemagne in this respect. It is equally true for a downtrodden peasant in rural Transylvania. When you are little and you think about your ancestors, you soon run into the ancestor paradox: you have two parents and 4 grandparents and 8 greatgrandparents and ... Which leads to questions like: How come the population in the past wasn't bigger than today? "Strangers are just relatives you haven't met yet" https://www.nature.com/articles/news990311-2
  4. There are one or two people who think reality "is" math. But they are very much in the minority. Cladking just likes to pretend everyone else is wrong because it make him feel smart.
  5. Strange

    Biden’s VP Choice

    ! Moderator Note Incoherent hijack split off to Trash
  6. Colourless green ideas sleep furiously
  7. As you are unwilling to say what you are dividing we can only guess
  8. But why 928? I assume "because it works" in whatever bizarre numerological delusion you are involved in. There is no "of course" about it. And what over c5? If you mean lp, then dividing a length by a speed to the 5th power does not give a time. You need to do some basic dimensional analysis, instead of just throwing random numbers around. Do you want to try that again in English? What does "comparing speeds of light" mean? There is only one speed of light: c == c. The denominator of what? What is a "wavevolume"? What photon? How much is it redshifted? When you are writing in incomplete sentences, in broken English, and making up words and numbers with no explanation, stop adding "of course". This is, of course, frobnitz. WHAT equation? You could have saved time by posting it in Trash
  9. ! Moderator Note I have removed the video as it did not seem to be related to the contents of your post. If you post a video you need to explain what it contains and how it is relevant to the topic.
  10. The Planck length is [math]\ell_\mathrm{P} =\sqrt\frac{\hbar G}{c^3} [/math]. Your "lp" appears to be the Planck length squared. 5th power of what? Where does this number (approx 5 * 1026) come from? It would be much easier to understand if you wrote that using standard notation. I am not going to try and make sense of that, especially when at least one of the "it"s is ambiguous/undefined. As the Planck units are all based on the same set of fundamental constants, it is not surprising that if you combine them in arbitrary ways you will get something that equates another Planck unit. I can't make much sense of the rest of your post. I'm tempted to quote the sage advice: "don't post stoned".
  11. You need to increase the voltage to maintain the arc. That will not necessarily increase the current. You may need to increase the voltage further to increase the current. How the current relates to voltage and size of gap is beyond me. And what force this might generate is beyond me too. Can you provide the source?
  12. Frogger has been suspended for two weeks for repeatedly posting nonsensical posts.
  13. Strange

    How long?

    ! Moderator Note If you don't have anything sensible to discuss, it may be best to stay silent. "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt" Abraham Lincoln.
  14. You really didn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_eversion#Proof
  15. Length contraction does not involve any bending. It is a linear process. A black hole is probably closer to whatever is going on in your imagination. (But you still several billion light years away from reality or any physics.) Which part of "it doesn't create a hole" are you having trouble with?
  16. Strange

    Dna code?

    ! Moderator Note Please explain what the purpose of this thread is.
  17. How do you know this is easy (or even possible)? How did you calculate 1km? You cannot go beyond this universe because there is no "beyond". The universe is all there is. Not possible. Not even meaningful. The whole point of eversion is that doesn't create a hole: "Remarkably, it is possible to smoothly and continuously turn a sphere inside out in this way (with possible self-intersections) without cutting or tearing it or creating any crease." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_eversion Guess. I don't know how you calculated that (I'm guessing you just pulled it out of thin air) but it is wrong.
  18. 1. What evidence do you have that the universe is a sphere? 2. How on Earth do you plan to turn the entire universe inside out? 3. Why do you think that turning the universe inside out would lead to time travel? 4. Does sphere eversion work in 4 dimensions? 5. Why do you keep posting nonsensical ideas? Fool through? 🙂
  19. You can't reach the speed of light. So your entire premise is false.
  20. ! Moderator Note You have you own thread for this topic. Do not hijack other people's threads with your own speculative ideas.
  21. This was in reference to the picture strange posted. There is no box in my diagram, either! 🙂 But if you increase the gap, you will rapidly stop the spark. Unless you keep increasing the voltage. (Operating at a lower pressure might help.) If you force the electrons to take a longer path in the arc, then you will need even higher voltage to maintain the arc. This does not necessarily mean that the current will increase. Calculating the resistivity of a plasma is extremely complicated. I suspect (but I really don't know) that the current would be roughly constant if you increase both the voltage and the spark gap. If they are at 90º (as it seems from your diagram) then the force between them will be zero. (And, generalising from that, I *think* the net force within a closed loop will be zero -- but my math skills aren't up to proving that, or I don't have time, at least!)
  22. Nice point. On the other hand, maybe the difficulty of reconciling it with QM wouldn't be realised until the theory was largely done.
  23. You are cherry picking. And hand-waving. It is getting tedious. I am waiting for some quantitative data from you to support your claims.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.