Kyrisch

This sounds like a basic description of a covalent bond, like the bonds in water -- [math]H_2 O[/math].

That's interesting to know, thank you. I am inclined to point out, however, that my thread containing three superficially anti-religious (of which you only picked that one) Jefferson quotes was a sort of tongue-in-cheek response to Jackson33 who had earlier posted superficially pro-Christianity Jefferson quotes. My intentions were not to surmise about Jefferson's character based on those utterances, but to illustrate the caveat that is to do such a thing.

To keep it simple, light always travels in a straight-line path through space-time. Gravitational bodies warp and bend space, causing the shortest-distance-path to seem curved, the way the line connected two points on the surface of a sphere is curved. So, let's think about your situation: where would the photon be coming from if its direction were exactly orthogonal to the surface of the sphere (with radius the schwarzchild radius of the black hole)? The only way this could happen is if the photon came out from the black hole (from the other side of the event horizon). This is clearly impossible.

...but how can you prove whether or not a plingybob exists if you don't know what it is (i.e. what attributes it has)?

The second bit hardly seems true. Take a look at this to-scale representation of the planets' orbits.

You can't answer the second question until you answer the first question.

The whole thing seems rather unnecessary. Why is your theory more useful than the one accepted at present?

This is true.

It's not that the rods and cones cannot 'process' those wavelengths, but rather that they are not physically sensitive to light whose wavelengths are not in the visible spectrum.

This would be a viable theory, if simply making noses and ears larger helped improve the acuity of the respective senses. Is this the case? Pretty clearly not. As a side note, the eyes certainly don't grow, and sight deteriorates just as much as hearing tends to in old age, generally. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The first link with which you referenced your statement blatantly contradicts you. It is actually a common misconception that we were "meant" to die out in our 30s and 40s. Actual text below:

I'd just like to point out that this is the reason that everyone was making a fuss about how many lives a fertilized egg (or more ambiguously, a blastula) represents. A person is not only a human, but also an individual. If the human is not individual, they are not a person. At the point of fertilization, the egg has the potential to grow into any indeterminate amount of human beings and cannot, therefore, by your own semantic argument, be a person.

Any neutrally buoyant object in air will remain in place barring perturbations. All one must do is make a balloon which weighs exactly the same as the amount of air it displaces (so the gas inside the balloon must be slightly lighter than air to compensate for the mass of the balloon).

The second one actually seems a little garish. I like the first one; it's smoother.

If the gravity acting on it were perfectly evenly distributed, then it would probably. Why not?

Allow me to clarify. It's very obvious that the general consensus is against the idea that life begins at fertilization: is contraception mass murder?, et cetera. But I'm speaking about the other end. If life doesn't begin at fertilization, where does it begin? Any cut-off further along with be necessarily arbitrary and will fall prey to the same arguments. Just like you can't use "it will become life" because it includes birth control causing the fertilized egg to fail to implant as murder, you can't use sentience as the definition because it excludes vegetative and comatose people. Anything specific will exclude something, and 'hands off and let the people involved decide' leads to women killing their five-year-olds because they don't want them anymore.