Kyrisch

Recent experiments have cast doubt upon the Copenhagen interpretation regarding complementarity. An experiment was done that allowed a neutron interferometer to be subject to gravitation, and the neutrons created the interference pattern while simultaneously being affected by the gravitational field, something that should only affect particles.

What I find especially ironic is that the only way this had any chance of occurring at all is if the propogation of genetic diversity was MUCH MORE than even what the theory of evolution posits, which they will denounce as an impossibility in the very next breath.

No. The formula for the square of a binomial expression is [math](a+b)^2 = a^2 + 2ab + b^2[/math]. If you're working with an imaginary number [math]n^2=(a,b)^2=(a+bi)^2=a^2+2\* a\* b\* i + (bi)^2[/math]. The new real part would be [math]a^2+ (bi)^2=a^2-b^2[/math] and the imaginary part would be [math] 2\*a\*b\*i[/math]. Your main mistake is that the real part is only factored in once, it is an unfortunate that the example you gave had [math]a=2[/math] so [math] 2\*a\*b[/math] became ambiguous. Your second mistake seems to be a lapse in understanding of the relationship between [math](a,b)[/math] and [math](a+bi)[/math] as well as what FOIL (poduct of the First two numbers plus product of the Outside two numbers plus product of the Inside two numbers plus product of the Last two numbers) and how it simplifies to the square of a binomial formula due to the identity [math](a+b)^2 = (a+b)\*(a+b)[/math].

In other words, they get transferred to the particles into which the black hole evapourates. AFAIK it's called Hawking Radiation and even though it's never been demonstrated it's widely accepted as fact. (I read in The Elegant Universe that he really regrets that fact that it's never been observed because he would most definitely get a Nobel Prize for his work on that as soon as it's proven to actually happen)

It doesn't quite 'defy' the Theory of Relativity. All the equations in the theory say that an object with nonzero mass can never travel at the speed of light because as its velocity approaches c, its relativistic mass approaches infinity. However, the equation is as follows: [math]m_{relativistic} = \frac {m_{rest}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/math] At the point where [math]v=c\,,m_{relativistic}[/math] is undefined. However, if [math] v>c\,, m_{rest}[/math] simply needs to be negative or imaginary, depending on which equation you use, and a coherent answer still comes out. What these terms translate to in the physical world is anyone's guess, but it essentially still follows the equations of the theory.

I don't think you understand what ions are. Ions are fractured atoms -- atoms with a net charge (meaning they either have more or fewer electrons than normal). The electrons and protons themselves aren't ionised, the atoms are. 'Ionisation' describes the behaviour of electrons with respect to the atoms.

Yeah, this is for the equator, I used equatorial radius and circumference. There's an error though so the end result is a factor of [math]2\pi[/math] too small.

That's [math](a+b)^2 =a^2 + 2ab + b^2[/math] so [math] (2+3i)^2 = 2^2 + 2 * (2*3i) + (3i)^2[/math]. The 4 is the [math]2^2[/math].

Ah, yeah. The number didn't seem quite right to me either but it was late and I figured if I did anything wrong someone would correct me. I needed to use the radius there, not the circumference.

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the pseudo-force, often called centrifugal. The force needed to KEEP an object on the surface of a spinning Earth would be equal to [math]F_{centripetal} = M\frac{v^2}{R}[/math]. If we set [math]R[/math] to the radius of the Earth and then set the equation equal to gravity you get [math]F_c = M\frac{v^2}{6 378 100\, m} = M \,9.8 m/sec^2[/math]. The [math]M[/math] cancels and you get [math]v= 7 906 \,m/sec[/math]. The Earth's approximate circumference (since it is a spheroid) is [math]40 000 000 \,m[/math]. This means the angular velocity would have to be [math]\frac{7 906\, m/sec}{40 000 000 \,m} = 0.000198 \,rad/sec[/math]. Doing some dimensional analysis... [math]\frac{0.000198\, rad}{sec} \, \frac{3600\, sec}{hours} \, \frac{1 \,rotation}{2\pi \,radians} \, \frac{24 \,hours}{day} = 2.72 \,rotations/day[/math]. So yes, if the speed of the Earth's rotation increased to 271% of what it is now, you would experience "zero gravity" because all of the Earth's pull would be dedicated to keeping you in a circular path, and not pulling you down.

Gravitational fields cause time dilation. Since the field within the event horizon is so strong, an object entering a black hole would appear to slow down to a standstill from an observer outside its gravitational influence. Time never 'does' anything, the effects of time dilation are just due to differences in reference frames.

A star doesn't die quietly. The sun is projected to expand until its radius more than subsumes the Earth's orbit. Neglecting this, it would take approximately 8 minutes for the light and heat to span the approximately 8 light minutes from here to the Sun and 8 minutes for the theoretical gravitons to cease interaction as well.

This is the issue philosophised in Zeno's paradox of time with the flying arrow... You should wiki it, the others are pretty fun too. Each has appropriate mathematical/physical resolutions, too.

And the best part is that this article, printed in the Science section of the local paper, insisted on calling the thing the 'atom-smasher'. In the headline, in the caption, and everywhere it was referenced in the article it was given this ridiculous nickname. I think the only place where "Large Hadron Collider" was printed in the article was within the quotes of the interviewed scientists.

Isn't it somewhat of a current theory that dark matter may have 'negative' gravity?

It almost sounds as if he's PLANNING on blowing someone up and making it as 'paintfull' as possible.

I'm pretty sure it was meant that no quantum effects would be noticeable...

ZOMG ISN'T THIS THING GONNA LYK MAKE SUPERMASSIVE SUPERDANGEROUS SUPERBLACKHOLSE [/troll] (Sorry, I just had to get that out of my system... I saw an article in the newspaper whose gist could be summed up by the above statement. I do despise the sensationalism of the media.)

The virtual world is a delusion and the real world is, well, real. If you don't believe in gravity and you jump off a cliff you will still plummet to your death. I'm sorry. (As an end note, I feel kind of weird using an analogy that I originally heard when I told an evangelist that I didn't believe in Hell, however fitting it may here be)

The nightmare is most likely not associated with the paralysis, the paralysis is associated with the state which is also associated with the nightmare. The nightmare (vivid hallucinations and the like) is due to the nature of the state in which brain function occurs during sleep paralysis; since it is similar to a dreaming state except that, of course, the individual is aware, the dreams translate into things that the brain hallucinates into existence.

People refer to time as linear, to 'points' on the timeline. This is analogous to one-dimensional, linear verbiage. My question is whether there is any maths that back up this cyclical (dimensions having analogs every 'three layers'; this of course is also assuming that, unlike in string theory, the dimensions from 3-6 are all temporal and not extra spatial dimensions) nature.

It would seem to me that it has to do with the fact that an individual experiencing sleep paralysis is just that -- paralysed. And while breathing will still occur due to its autonomous nature, it will not be able to be consciously controlled. How this translates to weight is simple, you might have experienced this yourself; if an appendage of yours has ever 'fallen asleep' to the point where it is completely numb (or paralysed), a sensation of heaviness occurs due to this utter lack of control and as such an inability to lift it (which is definitely one of the ways the brain gauges weight).

This is not solvable. Too much information is given... The question is not self-consistent.

This is trodding on the boundaries of some very inappropriate ground... Screw Enzyte, just think happy thoughts at it!

I would say so. Understanding vector maths is sort of dependent on understanding trig.