Mordred

Oh man its been over 30 years since I last did effective centre of mass calcs lol. Good call +1

In a thermodynamic sense yes. The CMB is the turnover point from a radiation dominant universe to the matter dominant universe until the cosmological constant became dominant around the universe age 7 Gly roughly exact value depends on which dataset your using

Those earlier links will take that equation and transform it to the redshift equation. So your thinking of using the CMB as a cosmological event horizon. Gotcha however note the CMB is roughly z=1104.

you will still have an EH from the observer perspective on either side. Strange as this sounds but GR does work for FTL if your observers are also FTL. Though in both cases the infinity problem still exists for v=c.

try using a time derivitave such as [latex]a(t)=\frac{\dot{R}}{R}[/latex] which is radius now t_1 over radius then t_0 the over dot denotes present time. The one Link I posted earlier the other day will give you procedures on how to go from there.

I understand vaguely what your trying to do but that vagueness is due to factors such as your incorrect equation.

exactly as your dealing with an expanding volume you need units of time and distance. Those units need to be on both the LHS and RHS of the equal sign As your dealing with volume you can use radius

Lets try a basic example I have a 1 metre rod. That rod expands over time. Lets assume the rod starts at 1 metre. And it doubles in length every second. 1 metre/sec=1 metre/sec*100%. see how I have the same total units on either side of the equation? Here is an article covering dimensional analysis. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://web.mit.edu/2.25/www/pdf/DA_unified.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjI8Y7DxOLQAhVNzWMKHTyoDgcQFggdMAA&usg=AFQjCNH0Zupq6nh1jxaH-tV5uqG_Syz1Zg

expansion rate is usually in units equivalent to metres/second but you also need a volume value. For example Hubble expansion rate is units km/sec/Mpc. under SI units this would be metres/sec/metres. Time under SI is just seconds. What you have above expansion rate=1/t^2 if you were to take the sum of the SI units on the RHS =the LHS would mean the LHS would also be sec^2 In essence you have sec^2=1/sec^2 with no distance unit on either side of the equation. At no point in your equation have you defined a distance. For expansion you require a distance unit on both sides of the =sign.

Well once again we hit that basic problem of the equation you posted not having the correct units to keep the LHS and RHS of the equation balanced. An equation is only valid if the units on the LHS and RHS are equal under dimensional analysis. So quaranteed if you ever try getting your idea professionally peer reviewed it would be instantly rejected based on the equation you just gave. Regardless of any other data you include. Simply having that equation in your paper would cause a rejection. You will need a mathematically correct equation to replace that one.

I haven't done the calcs but I doubt the Earths magnetic field would be strong enough. Good that you noticed two of the main concerns on the maglev idea. As well as one of the problems on the temperature idea. Well done and thought out.+1

That is correct, it favored flat but still allowed for the possibility of a positive curvature under msrgin of error. Though that 880 Gly figure came from the collected data from Planck and the South pole Observatory on a paper published shortly after the 2012 results. I came across the paper while I was still active on Physicforums. It was one of the discussions we had there. Unfortunately I never kept a copy of that paper but if you would like to read it I could search the threads I was involved in there. Though it would take some time.

lol

Welcome to science lol

The larger the region the more fluctuations will happen. Fluctuations always occur in matter/antimatter pairs. Now there are circumstances where virtual particles can become real. In all cases its by a dynamic that seperates the pair from annihilating each other. 1) quantum tunneling ie Hawking radiation 2) rapid expansion causing seperation (inflation, an older model is Parker radiation) today often referred to as the inflaton in Guths false vacuum inflation and later inflation models such as chaotic eternal inflation. 3) Cosmological horizons (Unruh radiation) which also involves tunneling. They all involve tunnelling but the reasons behind the tunnelling can have different causes. Think of a waveform with two sinusoidal humps. The second hump lower than the first. Tunneling is when the particle jumps from the higher (false vacuum hump to the lower true vacuum hump) it always higher energy to lower energy never the opposite. The potential difference between the two humps is the barrier. So if you have a higher vacuum region tunnelling can occur to a lower vacuum region. If the virtual particles have enough energy to cross the barrier. On Hawking radiation this is slightly different same for Unruh radiation. treat both as the same. Hawking radiation occurs outside the EH. One particle crosses the EH lost forever while the opposite escapes via tunnelling.

quantum fluctuations are in essence a result of field fluctuations in QFT treatment. A field can have a measured zero energy but that is the average energy of the field. Localized regions of a field will still have fluctuations even when the average field energy is zero. The Heisenburg uncertainty principle is intrinsic to field's as well. Its more often called vacuum state but it amounts to the same

Quantum fluctuations don't require observers. Neither does the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. Much like time dilation occurs even if you have no observers. "in fact proved later by Weyl [4], Kennard [3], and Robertson [2] - refers not to the precision and disturbance of a measurement, but to the uncertainties intrinsic in the quantum state" https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0034v2

Well you will never reach absolute zero according to QM as the Heisenburg principle will always be there. According to QM the lowest possible state is zero point energy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy Though the heat death is a likely scenario with the current expansion and cosmological constant (assuming it remains constant in the future)

You might be interested in The Heaven and Earth design by Wei Zhao Winner of the 2012 eVolo Skyscraper competition. The design uses massive maglev's to counter Earths magnetic field. http://earthtechling.com/2012/03/floating-city-rises-above-it-all-to-green-future/ I wouldn't call this a practical idea though. I seriously doubt this could work. Another proposed idea was geodesic domes using temperature. http://www.geniusstuff.com/blogs/flying-cities-buckminster-fuller.htm As you can see some have tried to come up with reasonably seeming designs. The real question is "can they theoretically work" ? Should help though in presenting previous conceptual ideas. Keep in mind these are conceptual ideas.

Photos of the driveway would definetely help.

There can be a decent science discussion behind the idea. So I doubt it, provided the thread stays within mainstream science. ie no pink unicorns for a propulsion system. I would start by establishing a size and maximum weight for the application. Sensei has provided a good direction on buoyancy calcs. Some of the materials you suggested has merit. If the thread runs properly everyone can potentially learn a few things. Nothing wrong with that. Particularly examining plausibility vs practicality. Something like this material will help reduce the weight of your structures. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/one-of-the-strongest-lightest-metals-ever-made-is-less-dense-than-water Best part is from the link it looks like its reasonably inexpensive and producable on numerous factories. For practical reasons due to pressure I would stick to helium.

Lol for the amount of money to desigm that you could buy a small island. Just a side note lol Either way it will be interesting to see what ideas come out of this thread. Particularly the theoretical plausibility vs practicality.

lol it can even work while snowing before it builds up

The larger ones work good up to 6 inches but again the price tag is large. Heavy dumps are problematic even for a blower. My father runs a snow removal business. I often help him when he is short on manpower. Needless to say he has all the toys including a small bobcat with snow bucket. I hesitate on the tarp idea, that is a lot of weight over a large distance. The bucket idea is neat I will admit. Do you perchance have a truck or car? ie do you have a hitch? The reason I ask is I recall one farmer modified a plow with two wheels that he could drag using his hitch to move the snow where he could more easily remove it. Not sure how much it cost to put it together though. It was years ago two feet is hard on most powered equipment except bobcat style plow. Particularly if you need to move it 75 feet without going to the sides. My fathers largest blower with price tag over 5 grand and 4 foot diameter blades would have difficulty under those conditions. I doubt it would handle it going from garage to road. To the sides easily but not straight on for 75 feet. To be honest with you, you may actually be better contracting the work out to someone that has the right equipment ie bobcat for your large dumps. For example My father could have that removed in under 1 hour with 2 people so under two manhours. Some private companies are flexible for just on call work as opposed to monthly contract.

It is interesting but I had already seen and read the arxiv on the first post.