Strange

Not really, no.

That equation tells you what a tiny effect light has compared to matter. By a factor of 1/100,000,000,000,000,000 I don't know what you were trying to do with that equation, but it has nothing to do with length contraction. If you want to calculate length contraction due to velocity then you need the Lorentz transform (which is very simple). But that doesn't seem to be what you want to do. The length contraction due to gravitational spacetime curvature would require the equations of general relativity, which are immensely complex and I have no idea how you would calculate it. Note that the entire mass of the Earth does not cause the effect you are looking for. So a high powered laser with the energy equivalent to a speck of dust is obviously not going to either. Now, if you could compress the mass of the Earth into the size of a speck of dust (create a black hole) then you might be on to something.

! Moderator Note We are not going to provide assistance with self medication.

He confirmed that light, like any form of energy (including mass) will curve spacetime. (His explanation was quite confusing, though.) I used that fact to calculate the relative effectiveness of light and matter for curving space. As you can see from the calculations, matter is vastly more effective (and economical) as a way of curving spacetime. You don't seem interested in real physics, though. I am not aware of any examples where light plays a significant role in spacetime curvature. I would be interested in hearing of one (possibly very briefly in the collapse of a supernova). Apparently. Evidence. The correct calculations using the correct equations. The only calculations you have done were a meaningless misuse of e=mc2; you would have been better off using that to calculate how much light you would need to generate to be equivalent to a speck of dust.

I'm afraid that the firstling that comes to mind is that your statement is wrong, so "No" is a perfectly good answer. You could ask questions and learn. That would be more productive for everyone. I didn't say it has a huge mass. I said it is dense. Therefore it is the most effective material on Earth for curving space-time. (In space, neutron stars are millions of times denser, but that is even less practical.) Why would we? A little bit of thought and analysis shows it is a stupid idea that cannot possibly work. No, we also discuss quantum physics. But what do you mean by "classical physics"? If you mean real physics, that works (as opposed to nonsense you have made up based on a cartoon), then "yes". We only allow real physics. Creativity is good. But it needs to be based in reality. And hard work doesn't count, unless it is based in reality. Maybe devote your time to writing science fiction, if you are not interested in science.

The general rules: https://www.scienceforums.net/guidelines/ The rules specific to Speculations: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/ Other useful posts are stacked at the top of the Speculations forum: https://www.scienceforums.net/forum/29-speculations/ Is what credible? Your idea of using light to curve spacetime to create a noticeable effect? No. For the reasons given. Plus you don't understand the basic physics involved.

! Moderator Note The question has been answered: thread closed. A final point of clarification: Fomalhaut A and B are stars. Fomalhaut a and b are planets. (Well, b is apparently not a planet.) The article is about Fomalhaut b "disappearing" (not being a planet in the first place). Fomalhaut B is still there.

The story was confirmed by the German government. Maybe you need to get your "BS meter" checked. The issues was not "what angers Germans". That is just an attempt to deflect the argument. It is almost as if you are biased.

It shows that detected RNA fragments are present. It doesn't necessarily show that whole virus particles are present. And, even if they are, it doesn't tell us anything about transmissibility.

That's "we", for some of us!

! Moderator Note Do not hijack other peoples threads with your own speculations. Especially when it includes crackpot conspiracy theories. Thank you.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Note that this section of the forum requires you to provide evidence to support your claims. It is not an assumption; we can detect the antibodies. Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

! Moderator Note As those other things are obviously far more important than the ignorant nonsense you have posted here, this thread is closed. Do not open another thread on this subject. Welcome to the forum, I look forward to your more constructive engagement in discussions in future.

How much do you already know? When you say "from the beginning" do we need to start with voltage, current flow and basic electronic components? Or can we assume you know about transistors? Or logic gates? Binary arithmetic? Machine code? Instruction sets? Compilation and optimization techniques? Sorting algorithms? Machine learning? Where is "the beginning"?

No there isn't. https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-not-human-made-in-lab.html

And, just to avoid confusion, some of that data can be interpreted as instructions to execute. (The lack of a distinction between code and data leads to several security vulnerabilities which need to be tackled in various ways in hardware and software. I don't suppose that ever occurred to those developing the first computers.)

The main memory in a computer can be DRAM, SRAM, flash or disk drives. These have different characteristics such as speed, power consumption, cost, size, access speed, etc. So they each have a place in different types of computer system. Cache memory just needs to be faster than the main storage that it is used with. So data to or from a disk storage device, might be cached in DRAM (because DRAM is cheap) or flash (because it is faster than disk. but still non-volatile) or SRAM (because it is fast and can be integrated with the disk drive). Data from DRAM is likely to be cached in SRAM (because it is faster and it is easier to integrate SRAM on chip).

In other words, if things have no way of interacting then they cannot affect each other. Blindingly obvious and not a useful insight. So, if two or more things are not in equilibrium (and are able to interact, per 1) then they will tend towards equilibrium. Again, another statement of the obvious. A definition of the well-defined concept of equilibrium. (Not a very good definition, because you haven't said what "equal" means, but presumably it means they are in equilibrium.) I don't think any of them are wrong. They are just statements of well-known facts. It provides absolutely no new insights or any new way of using the knowledge. Useless, rather than wrong.

This is a subject that you can study for several years at university, so I don't think a few questions on a forum are going to be the best way to learn. I suggest reading some books and finding some online courses. Then, if you have specific questions about things you don't understand, then we can help you. But saying "please teach me everything about <vast subject>" is not going to work.

Fascinating puzzle! I have no idea. Reading through the history, the only thing I can guess it might be is for seismology.

You don't have to convert it to energy. (There is no such thing as "pure energy"). It has exactly the same effect on space-time as the equivalent energy. With the added advantage that it stays still.

1. Your "calculations" of length contraction are nonsensical. 2. You can get far more energy in a spot as mass than you can in the form of light. Let's assume a 1cm cube of osmium (the densest elements). That weighs about 23 g which is equivalent to roughly 1014 joules. But light keeps moving, so in order to have that much energy in the same space, you would need to keep shining light on it. It would take about 3 picoseconds for that light to pass through the 1cm space, so you would to illuminate the 1cm code with 6 x 1025 W of light. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(22.59+g+*+c^2)+%2F++(1+cm+%2F+c) That is more than the "estimated total power output of a Type-II civilization on the Kardashev scale" (that might mean more to you than it does to me) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(power)#1015_to_1026_W So maybe easier to go to a specialist supplier and buy a gram of osmium. Actually, osmium is pretty expensive and lead is nearly as dense and much cheaper. But both are cheaper than building and running a 1025 W laser. (That is about 1 billion times larger than the largest laser on Earth). I'll tell you what, though: it is much more fun actually working these things out than just making stuff up. You should try it.

But if you think about the relationship between mass and energy, it would be much more efficient to just put the equivalent mass there. The energy density of mass is much greater (by a factor of c2 or 100,000,000,000,000,000).

1 g of K40 results in about 3 billion joules (roughly the energy of a tank full of gas/petrol). https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(avogadro+number+%2F40)+*+1.32+MeV and https://www.radioactivity.eu.com/site/pages/Potassium_40.htm But, with a half life of over a trillion years, this would be an average power output of less than a mW (enough to light a very, very small LED).

LIGO and VIRGO have detected gravitational waves from the merger of two black holes of vastly different mass (8 and 30 solar masses). https://www.sciencealert.com/this-black-hole-collision-is-the-first-with-wildly-mismatched-masses They have a nice animation of the merger. This enables some further tests of GR (plot spoiler: results consistent with GR).