Strange

That is why it was confusing: the speed of light is c not C. Plus you didn't say what D and T were. You are using the wrong equation. In the wrong way. It looks (from the previous part of your answer) as if you are thinking about the effect of gravity (space-tie curvature in the presence of mass-energy) on length. In which case you would need to use general relativity to calculate the effects. These would be different in the radial direction from the other directions. And, to be honest, I don't know if lengths would increase or decrease; it is too complicated for me to work out. But also, it seems like you are trying to generate light with the equivalent energy to your mass. Apart from the fact this inevitably means you are mixing up energy and power, have you though about how much energy that is: E = mc2 For m = 108 kg, that is about 1019 joules https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=108+kg+*+c^2 That is just slightly less than the total electricity consumption of the USA for an entire year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)

Asking you to explain is not defamation. Maybe you need to invest in a new dictionary app. If you don't care enough to explain what you are talking about, I can request this is closed.

What a great question. And the answer is: Yes: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/birds-songs-share-mathematical-qualities-human-music/ And no: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/08/birdsong-not-music-after-all That might be because they looked at different species. Or that one or other of the methodologies was flawed.

This is not a limitation due to limitations of the measurement equipment (that would be the observer effect). It is better to think of it as the values not even being defined more accurately than this.

There is also the effect of moving the hot moist air above the soup away, allowing more water to evaporate from the soup. I'm not sure how much that contributes.

What does this mean? What does this have to do with the subject of the thread? What are C, D, T? (We can assume e and m are energy and mass).

! Moderator Note This forum is not the place to discuss stupid conspiracy theories and the like. Especially when the person starting the discussion is incapable of learning the difference between science and nonsense like this.

! Moderator Note 1. I am getting very annoyed by these threads where you invent things to scare yourself, instead of reading what is actually in the article. (And then do the same with replies.) 2. If there is a ninth planet, it is not close to Earth. It is, as that article says, "in the outer solar system" and "hundreds of times farther from the Sun than Earth" 3. Nowhere does the article say that it would get closer to Earth. 4. If it were a black hole increasing in mass, it would get further away. 5. It does not affect the Earth. 6. It is not going to kill you. 7. See your doctor.

Today I learned that the song Tom's Diner by Suzanne Vega was the first song converted to MP3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3

I can't be bothered to work it out in detail, and I probably can't easily find all the information, but because supermassive black hole mergers happen much more slowly the actual power (rather than energy) is only something like 100 times greater than for typical black hole mergers. So, even if it happened at the distance of the nearest black hole, the effect on the Earth would be minute (about half a millimetre change in the diameter of the Earth). As it would actually happen thousands or millions of light years away, the effect would be completely unnoticeable. Which is why we need incredibly sensitive measurement techniques to detect it.

No. And stop twisting every thread to fit your delusions. Have you spoken to your doctor yet? In the case of the black hole mergers detected so far, which are black holes around 20 to 30 times the mass of the Sun, even if they were as close to us as the Sun is it would only cause the Earth the stretch by about 1 metre, which is about the same as happens everyday due to the moon. (They would also be only about 100km across and so not visible without a really good telescope.) I will try and get some rough figures for the merger of supermassive black holes...

Almost certainly not.

They think that, using a new technique based on measuring the frequency of pulsars, they should be able to detect such mergers within 10 years: That is when they should have the capability to detect such mergers. But they are not absolutely certain they happen: https://www.simonsfoundation.org/2017/11/13/gravitational-waves-supermassive-black-hole-merger/

They have not seen one yet. (They have seen mergers of stellar mass black holes.) As it says, the current detectors (LIGO and VIRGO) would not be able to detect such a merger (because the frequency of the signal is too low). They have seen pairs of supermassive black holes that will probably merge at some time in the future. It has almost certainly happened before. One theory about how supermassive black holes become supermassive is by merging. Nearly all of the energy of such an event would be released as gravitational waves. These interact only weakly with matter so you would have to be really, really close to notice any effect at all.

It takes a lifetime, I guess.

As you don't seem interested in a discussion (this is a discussion forum) then there seems little point in this thread staying open.

It is the "geometry" of space and time; i.e. our measurements. Space or time are not physical objects, so they cannot literally curve. In general relativity, time does not move. Space-time is a static entity that represents the relationship between things (events) in space and time. So where we perceived an object moving through space, that would represented as a stain line through space-time. Why we perceive time as flowing from past to future is probably more of a philosophical/psychological question; although some branches of physics may help explain it (thermodynamics, for example, and various symmetries). But as far as we know things can only evolve forwards in time so time machines are not possible! Studiot is right, a good answer to that needs to be pitched at the right level.

! Moderator Note If people ask questions or point out errors in your claims, it is not because they haven't read your post carefully. You need to start providing substantive answers to questions. If you continue to just dismiss questions and the evidence from hundreds of years of physics, this thread will not last long. Finally, according to the rules you have agreed to, you need to provide answers here on the forum, not just by posting link. If your next post does not contain some solid evidence for your claims, such as the calculation of measurable results, then this thread will be closed.

How about neither. (Mainly because of the frequency of visible light) What is wrong with the existing methods of generating light?

A banana contains about half a gram of potation, of which about 0.012% is K40. So this is not a great way of way of trying to obtain a source of gamma rays. There are far easier ways of getting a source of radiation. ! Moderator Note Which, obviously, we are not going to tell you.

Maybe more accurate to say that the Dyson company worked with a medical technology company to develop a new ventilator. I read an article about how the UK decided that, instead of getting manufacturers to license designs of existing ventilators and manufacture them (they could have either paid the license fee or mandated that it was waived), decided that they would encourage manufacturers to come up with their own designs. Based on a fairly dubious spec from the government, which has since been rejected as inadequate by medical specialists. Never mind the extra time needed for testing and certification. Crazy, but typical of the "we don't need experts; how hard can it be" attitude of the current bunch of Eton clowns. EDIT: yes, the article that John Cuthber posted!

On the other hand, hopes that this could lead to herd immunity may be unrealistic: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52335210

Presumably you are incredibly wealthy now, by exploiting this pattern. (If not, then I suspect your claimed correlation is bogus.)

! Moderator Note This appears to be nonsense if you want try again by presenting a coherent argument here (not just posting a link) then maybe there will be something to discuss. But, remember this is a science forum.

I am a bit of a "process nerd"