imatfaal

You could try uploading to a site like flickr - getting it right there and just add a image link here

Do you really not understand the notion of waves? What about an observer who is not 1.3 billion LY away? There is nothing special about our position. The waves propagate spherically - very close in (ie where tidal effects and simple gravity is still massively important) then you cannot ignore the fact that things are not spherically symmetrical but at cosmological distances they are.

! Moderator Note This thread and the OP's topic is not up to the standard of the main physics forum. I am moving it to speculations - if the OP fails or decides not to defend their proposal then it will be locked. Please take a moment to reread the rules of the forum and the specific guidelines to the speculation forum. FYG just making stuff up is never good enough. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread - report this post if you feel it is unfair

! Moderator Note This thread and the OP's topic is not up to the standard of the main physics forum. I am moving it to speculations - if the OP fails or decides not to defend their proposal then it will be locked. Please take a moment to reread the rules of the forum and the specific guidelines to the speculation forum. FYG just making stuff up is never good enough. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread - report this post if you feel it is unfair

As I mentioned above - but you may have missed; I think this is the quickest way ((((((((((((((((3^2)^2)^2)*3)^2)*3)^2)*3)^2)^2)^2)^2)*3)^2)^2)^2) There are some phenomenal size multiplications to be done - but that will always be the case; however there is no preparation calcs needed. By that I mean you do not have to work out things like 3^256 - just 16 multiplications. Is that the silliest use of the word "just" in the last few years

We have been asked why a post was trash-canned. The post immediately followed my request that we should get back on the topic and move away from discussing reaction-less drives; the post which was trash-canned was on reaction-less drives. Ongoing topics have a central theme which may vary organically over time but sudden sideways branches are considered hijacks - even if this branch is started by the OP. One Speculations thread per topic otherwise we will never get answers given to the important questions raised in this forum. These are not blogs nor public streams of consciousness - there is a need for academic discipline. And raising questions of dogmatism and lack of imagination is just poor form - the post would have been trashed if the physics had been well established; it is taking the mickey to immediately write a post on X immediately after being asked to no longer post on X.

! Moderator Note OK time to stop arguing. You are basically trolling whether you know it or not. Swansont and the other members in this thread have made it abundantly clear what a hijack is. Your continued hair-splitting and/or failure to understand very simple instructions/rules is just too much - stop now. Thread Locked - the point has been made and you are just (deliberately or not) confusing the issue.

sorry but I had to say it out loud - Church of the Ladder-Day Saints.

Brilliant - just brilliant. It very rarely scales these heights. Real - but again acquired and re-learnable. I have done the self-experiment on blue cheese; I hated stilton and it made me queasy to even smell it. Twelve times I ate it - now I love the stuff. To be honest by the tenth or eleventh time I was converted. Phobias can be treated in exactly the same way. We are really quite simple animals

! Moderator Note Back on topic please. There are several threads on Shawyer Drives, reactionless microwave drives, and NASA's involvement with this form of propulsion in the main fora and in Science News. All of the threads contain pretty serious rebuttals of the frankly spurious claims made for these drives.

Indeed - a very important point. Statistics are both very important and very dangerous when describing society. You really need the mean, median, sd and skew - and by that point the person listening to the news programme or reading the web article has moved on to the next item that doesn't have all those confusing numbers.

I looked it up - Wolfram Alpha for all your calculating needs and the OP stated it was that long above

Indeed - so small in fact that quantum uncertainty is enough to be the progenitor of a slight over average density that might eventually become a supercluster

That is not a simple question - if you approach a simpler version algebraically it becomes clear 9^5 = 9*9*9*9*9 [latex]10^5 = (9+1)^5 = (9+1)*(9+1)*(9+1)*(9+1)*(9+1)[/latex] [latex]= 1(9^5*1^0)+5(9^4*1^1)+10(9^3*1^2)+10(9^2*1^3)+5(9^1*1^4)+1(9^0*1^5)[/latex] all the powers of one and figures to the power zero become 1 [latex]= (9^5)+5(9^4)+10(9^3)+10(9^2)+5(9)+1[/latex] the coefficients to the powers of 9 are obviously from pascals triangle and can be readily calculated - but it is still a lot of work. You would end up with a substraction from 10^2500 with 2499 terms being removed. And each of these terms being removed will require calculating and some will be considerably bigger than 9^2500. For instance the first negative term will be 2500*9^2499 - the second negative is much worse 31237500*9^2498. 10^2500 is a 2501 digit number, 9^2500 is a 2386 digit number; it is the tiniest tiniest fraction. All that said Michel - it would not massively surprise me if someone has come up with a clever and more importantly quick way of calculating it

in fact (3^x)^(5000/x) but those representations don't really help

Under the action of just gravity on earth the antimatter particle would go upwards - ie repulsion rather than attraction. NB This is very very unlikely - it is just that we do not have the tech to rule it out yet

((((((((((((((((3^2)^2)^2)*3)^2)*3)^2)*3)^2)^2)^2)^2)*3)^2)^2)^2) I would think this is the quickest way I will leave why this is what I have come up with as an exercise - unless you really want to know in which case tell me

If you want extra merit (and frankly I find it amazing you are doing it at all) - show the minimum number of calculations needed to do the calculation and the Order for this form of calc

Number - there are strange materials which will (at certain specific frequencies) taken in one photon and spit out two half energy, opposite polarization photons. This is the process of spontaneous parametric down conversion that is used in quantum eraser experiments - you get two entangled photons with conservation of mom and energy and they have opposite polarizations so that is balanced as well.

Yes

I would have to disagree with your definition of strain here Mordred. Strain in these terms is the relative change of a measured quantity of length due to an external influence - your definition "force at one end but not the other you produce strain" is closer to the notion of material stress (ie the internal force caused by an external strain). A rigid rod - assuming you meant ideally rigid - suffers no strain as it does not change dimension. In LIGO the strain is the change of the measured distance divided by the expected distance (ie dimensionless). The results are given as strain x10e-21 which seems about right for a displacement of ~10e-18m over distance of ~10e3m

Rob - please please do a little background reading before trying to jump in the deep end. It is getting embarrassing that you are posing novel though experiments without any knowledge of the basics. A strain in physics is often a dimensionless quantity which measures the relative change in shape or size due to an external influence. The fact that is is relative ie [change in length] divided by [original length] means that it has no units eg 1 nanometre / 1 metre = 10e-9 ; as there are no units to this number this is referred to as dimensionless. Most school-children come across strain in first year physics in terms of Young's Modulus - but it is roughly the same thing when dealing with the change in size of a light path both absent gravitational radiation and during gravitational radiation

The cosmological red shift - Hubble Law is always seen as pretty good evidence of whether it does or not, and the CMBR as remnant of the bb cooling is great to bolster the leading theory as to why it does what we observe it to do. It is not as if there are huge avenues of research that lie unexplored - there is very good evidence already and projects like BICEP2 are trying to get to the very hard to find stuff. What other evidence do you require to show expansion other than the observation that the universe is expanding? Scientists accept cosmological red-shift measurements - to call this evidence into doubt you would need a valid counter-explantion for millions of very simple and accurate observations.

A photon is a photon and does not suffer an inverse square decline - it is the aggregation of many photons ie light that varies by 1/r^2

He seems to be testing and claiming results for lots of the side issues related to superconductivity rather than the real deal. And unfortunately anything that starts with a screed against established science, has bad graphics, says how long the author has been doing this etc scores very high on the crackpot bingo card