Strange

You would need to remove all their energy. This is not going happen in nature and is tricky to do in a lab.

Could have. But with no evidence for that, it is just as plausible that it was hyper-intelligent white mice. Or the flying spaghetti monster. Or nothing.

So it is indistinguishable from something you imagined?

The energy of a photon depends on the wavelength. So gamma ray photons have more energy than visible light photons, and they will have a correspondingly greater gravitational effect. That sounds wrong. Gravity will still work over infinite distance. I would guess what they meant was that a quantum theory of gravity is required at the Planck scale.

You seem to be mixing two separate ideas here. One is that the speed of light is invariant: the same in all frames of reference. This has been tested (every test of SR confirms this). The other is that the speed of light is constant. This is harder to test (impossible to test directly). However, the value of the speed of light is fundamental to many things in physics. So if it changed, we should see some effects. (I am fairly sure I have seen something about this being tested, but can't find anything right now. So it appears the speed of light is both constant and invariant.

Do you know what "lower bound" means? p.s. As I commented on you refusing to answer questions, I should add: "yes, I am aware of their work".

You have, not surprisingly, avoided answering any of my questions. <shrug> As for "probably instantaneous" that is based on the fact that none of our current scientific theories give us any reason to think otherwise. Your "polished" figure is just made up nonsense.

Which verse? Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner, perhaps. What “magnetic cage”? And: citation needed. Nonsense. That is probably instantaneous.

360,000 years. Are you going to use that to work out a different value for the length of the "day" in the bible? By allowing yourself to change the definition arbitrarily, you have removed any meaning from the "6 days". And why should this particular creation myth hold any weight above the many others? Not using light, obviously. But if we are ever able to detect low-energy neutrinos, we can go back to a fraction fo second after the Big Bang. Would that make the mythical days really, really short?

Ah yes, "certain facts". Of course. Would they be "certain facts" that you know but you aren't going to explain? There is no scientific knowledge there. Unless you can show how it is empirically measurable and testable... How would you experimentally attempt to falsify the myth of creation in 6 days? But, of course, I assume you consider yourself to be one of "those that can see"?

The length if a side is not equal to a sine. Sines do not have a "length". All the triangles are similar (technical term, that; you might need to look it up) and so the angles, and therefore the sines will be the same for all of them. You might think it shows that, but it is gibberish, not mathematics. Also, what is the "length of a photon"? However, it seems that 360 * Planck length (which is what you mean, expressed very much more simply) is the wavelength of red light. (Not that this means much, whatever number it came to could be the wavelength of a photon).

What is? Do you realised you haven't answered any of the questions I asked? You can't have the sine of a triangle. That makes no sense. You might as well talk about the flavour of a colour. Calculating the sines of the 3 angles of a triangle that you describe is trivial schoolboy stuff. Your drawings are meaningless. The "equation" in your drawing makes no sense. It is the random scribblings of a confused mind. If you are feeding that sort of gibberish into Mathematica, no wonder it won't recognise it.

What does "center coordinates" of a sine mean? The value of a sine is a scalar value. How can it have coordinates? What does "sine of half of the equilaterals" mean? Do you just mean sin(30º)? Based on the above, I'm not surprised.

Aha! Got it. It makes sense now. And, (sorry for belabouring this, but it has taken me all this time to understand the original post!) this explains 4 (N - 1) + (N - 2)^2 = N^2. Using (Ath Sq. on X-Axis) * (Bth Sq. on Y-Axis)" = (A+1)*(B+1) we can see that: [(N-2)th Sq. on Y-Axis] * (3rd Sq. on X-Axis) = (N-1) * 4 [(N-3)th Sq. on Y-Axis] * [(N-3)th Sq. on X-Axis] = (N-2) * (N-2) So the OP's equation for N2 = (N-1) * 4 + (N-2) * (N-2) And we are back where we started.

The first compilers were written in assembler. These were then able to translate the high level language, for example C, into assembler/machine code. Once you have that first compiler, you can then write a compiler in C and compile it using the old compiler. Now you have a compiler written in C that is able to compile itself. This process is known as bootstrapping. But once you have any high level language compiler (whatever language it is written in) you can use it to write any program, including compilers for other languages. So you can write a Fortran or Basic compiler in C. Or a C compiler in Basic (if you are mad enough to attempt such a thing). The first versions of Basic were interpreted rather than compiled. Some modern version are either compiled into an intermediate code that is interpreted or a fully compiled. Even modern versions are pretty crude languages that no one should learn unless they have no choice.

Uncool explained how it relates to counting points in the previous post. He/she is obviously much smarter than me and was able to understand what you are doing in your method. But I’m afraid I still can’t follow your description. If you were willing to explain the steps, I might be able to. But it isn’t important, if you don’t want to. Does your “*” mean “max” (instead of multiply) as uncool suggested? That might be the info I was missing.

Huh?

That is explaining why 1/x is a hyperbola. 1/x2 is not a hyperbola.

How can "radiance" have a shape? What shape is it? What evidence do you have for this? But I know this is pointless. You obviously have no evidence. I think the suggestion that your cat told you all this when you were both stoned is the most plausible explanation for this drivel. Or you are just a not very convincing troll.

The proof is: (N-1)(4) + (N-2)(N-2) = (4N - 4) + (N-2)(N-2) = (4N - 4) + (N^2 - 4N + 4) = 4N - 4N - 4 + 4 + N^2 = N^2 QED

That is because the Einstein-Rosen bridge is based on a Schwarzschild black hole (because the mathematics is [relatively] simple). A Schwarzschild black hole is unchanging (eternal) in an otherwise empty universe - in other words, it is a simplification. But black holes with spin (Kerr black holes) can also have wormholes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric#Kerr_black_holes_as_wormholes

But if there are two of them, it would be a boson which, according to you, would not produce such a well. This seems a little ... inconsistent.

Yes, gravity is a geometric effect. I don't know where spin comes into it. Why? Bosons can have mass and charge and spin. So why don't they create this gravitational well? And what about composite bosons, made from fermions? Does this effect disappear when they are combined?

I don't really know what that means. Except you are describing the particle in terms of geometry? So spin is depends on how far away you are? That seems to contradict all the evidence we have about the behaviour of particles. What does "reside at unity" mean?

What is an "embedment"? And what are you plotting against 1/x2? In other words, what is x? I am guessing it is distance. So what is the y coordinate? There is a handy summary of spin and other properties here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle#/media/File:Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg