Strange

And it only uses the first link, not the “best” so it only specifies an upper bound

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

1 minute ago, joigus said:

Some days ago I learnt from @Strange that most Europeans are descended from Charlemagne. I've learnt many other things from him. But this one got me thinking (and still is) about the likely regular Jacks and Susans, and Joes and Marys, who were especially successful in the reproductive sense, but not particularly notorious, and got their genes pushed forward in human history.

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? 

Quote

About 20 generations (about 400 years), ago we each have about a million ancestors - and after that the numbers start to get even sillier. Forty generations ago (800 years) gives us one trillion ancestors, and fifty gives one quadrillion. This is not only many, many more people than live on the planet today - it is many more than have ever lived.

"Strangers are just relatives you haven't met yet"

https://www.nature.com/articles/news990311-2

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm not sure anyone here believes maths is reality, it's just a convenient language to describe "a" reality...

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.

7 minutes ago, IDoNotCare said:

Right, you know more than you're revealing, even regarding what I know. This relation is just for the different time dimensions, we are not in the pi curves of the single frame 3D topology for those spherical string theory yet, and of course as a wave quantum gravity is also related to those framerates

Colourless green ideas sleep furiously 

1 minute ago, IDoNotCare said:

Well as sqrt(hg/c^3) is LP sqrt(hg/c^5) is lt where h is reduced plancks constant

And where g is G

23 minutes ago, IDoNotCare said:

Why would I divide LP by c^5?? LoL 😂

As you are unwilling to say what you are dividing we can only guess

10 minutes ago, IDoNotCare said:

9^28 * LP is the numerator like I said 

But why 9²⁸? I assume "because it works" in whatever bizarre numerological delusion you are involved in.

11 minutes ago, IDoNotCare said:

Over c^5 for lt of course

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.

Quote

but that is irrelevant for equalling the lp for the numerator in the equation it only becomes relevant again when comparing speeds of light.

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.

14 minutes ago, IDoNotCare said:

The denominator of course was the wavevolume of the redshift photon

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. 

17 minutes ago, IDoNotCare said:

Oh yes I forgot the square root (though not in the equation).

WHAT equation?

1 hour ago, IDoNotCare said:

This was going to end up here anyway.

You could have saved time by posting it in Trash

1 hour ago, IDoNotCare said:

Using plancks constant times the grav constant over c^3 for lp

The Planck length is [math]\ell_\mathrm{P} =\sqrt\frac{\hbar G}{c^3} [/math]. Your "lp" appears to be the Planck length squared.

1 hour ago, IDoNotCare said:

5th power for lt

5th power of what?

1 hour ago, IDoNotCare said:

multiplied 9^28

Where does this number (approx 5 * 10²⁶) come from?

1 hour ago, IDoNotCare said:

into it as the numerator and it equated to the planck mass and when divided by the wavelength of a photon I got the planck density synonymous with the planck temperature.

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".

8 hours ago, DandelionTheory said:

I'm not calculating current increase, the question is: does the magnetic field increase due to current increase maintaining the spark gap, and does that additional current increase in the spark gap translate to force on the wires?

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.

8 hours ago, DandelionTheory said:

I'm heavily leaning on current due to this 

Can you provide the source?

Frogger has been suspended for two weeks for repeatedly posting nonsensical posts.

37 minutes ago, fredreload said:

I just made several billion light years 0 unit.

You really didn't.

37 minutes ago, fredreload said:

And how do you know it does not? Where is your proof?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_eversion#Proof

1 minute ago, fredreload said:

I am using length contraction to bend the space time in accordance to sphere eversion.

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.)

2 minutes ago, fredreload said:

By the time it finishes the eversion, there would be a hole in space time that links to the past/future in the block universe.

Which part of "it doesn't create a hole" are you having trouble with?

26 minutes ago, fredreload said:

2. It is simple to create a sphere eversion pattern energy with laser on mid air, you just etch the design in mid air as a plasma, but it would require a 1km radius of such plasma.

How do you know this is easy (or even possible)?

How did you calculate 1km?

23 minutes ago, fredreload said:

Is that the same as saying you cannot go beyond this universe?

You cannot go beyond this universe because there is no "beyond". The universe is all there is.

19 minutes ago, fredreload said:

1. I am trying to pull a hole in space time with length contraction using energy.

Not possible. Not even meaningful.

19 minutes ago, fredreload said:

3. By falling through the hole that is created through sphere eversion

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

20 minutes ago, fredreload said:

5. Why do you keep calling my posts nonsensical and blocking them = =?

Guess.

20 minutes ago, fredreload said:

Well if I take my mass 104kg for E=mc^2 it would require an energy of.

E=104*(3*10^8)^2 joules which is doable to generate 

I don't know how you calculated that (I'm guessing you just pulled it out of thin air) but it is wrong.

49 minutes ago, fredreload said:

should I go with sphere eversion method

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?

7 minutes ago, joigus said:

I think "fall through" are the key words.

Fool through? 🙂

Very Judge Dredd

27 minutes ago, fredreload said:

I am not sure what happens when you contract the length of the universe to 0 when you reaches the speed of light rendering all distances from the lorentz length contraction to 0.

You can't reach the speed of light. So your entire premise is false.

On 8/11/2020 at 8:04 AM, Duda Jarek said:

It would be interesting to derive (and confirm) general relativity corrections to Jefimenko equations ...

Many GR confirmations like Gravity Probe B are in fact of GEM - what confirmations of higher order terms are there?

 

GEM was introduced by Oliver Heaviside in 1893 and is Lorentz invariant ... interesting thought experiment: how physics would look like without Einstein?

I believe they would build on GEM - adding corrections to Lagrangian, starting with EM-GEM coupling to bend photon trajectories by Sun.

GEM has no renormalization problem, trivially unifies with the rest of physics as it is just another F_munu F^munu in Lagrangian - many approaches to solve this problem like string theory might never appear (?)

Where the problems would start?

4 hours ago, DandelionTheory said:

On 8/10/2020 at 12:24 PM, Strange said:

Where is the box? It doesn't appear in your diagram.

This was in reference to the picture strange posted.

There is no box in my diagram, either! 🙂

4 hours ago, DandelionTheory said:

Agreed. The initial spark is a factor of humidity, voltage, atmosphere pressure, dielectric breakdown, and some more. From what I've learned about Jacobs ladder papers, the current supplied maintains the arc.

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.)

4 hours ago, DandelionTheory said:

Perfect. That's the answer. But "forced away from the center of the current loop" is more specific.

If the initial arc is at shortest path, maintain arc with increased current, which increases magnetic field and displaces arc and current in wires. When arc's contact with the ground wire reaches the length of the ground wire, disengage current supplied and calculate total displacement.

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.

4 hours ago, DandelionTheory said:

In the original scenario, the wires are bent away from each other

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!)

57 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Thinking out loud... At the time, Einstein did not have to feel embarrassed because he didn't know how to reconcile his theory with QM. If one would be developing GR some 40 years later, he would be under some pressure to provide a theory that includes QM. Some guys/girls might abandon their work out of frustration... So maybe, we won't ever have GR as it is now, but we would directly have (eventually) a version given with QM in mind.

Nice point.

On the other hand, maybe the difficulty of reconciling it with QM wouldn't be realised until the theory was largely done.

1 minute ago, Duda Jarek said:

This article starts with below diagram with caption "Diagram regarding the confirmation of gravitomagnetism by Gravity Probe B" - which is this second set of Maxwell's equations. Where do you see a disagreement?

You are cherry picking. And hand-waving. It is getting tedious.

I am waiting for some quantitative data from you to support your claims.