Radical Edward

it is not the case that an object with greater energy will live longer at all.

the bigger the black hole, the slower it evaporates, at least that is the principal. the mechanism behind how the universe came about will be a different once I suspect.

yes you can tell if you are in earth's gravitational field or in an accelerating lift out in the middle of nowhere, but that is because the acceleration in earth's field is towards a point (lets assume you have some really neat gear and can tell the change in trajectory because of this), and the acceleration in a lift is unidirectional, however this has nothing to do with einstein's point. all you are detecting is the difference between two systems (one is spherical and one is effectively one dimensional). His point is that there is no difference between a gravitational acceleration, and any other acceleration, and nothing you have said demonstrates otherwise.

most reference texts are wrong, there does not have to be acceleration for there to be weight, just a force. this is simple to see because the units for force and weight are the same (Newtons) Incidentally, Maxwell was on the verge of finding the Special Theory of Relativity, but he died. Furthermore, Einstein's argument revolves around the fact that there is no way to tell the difference between inerial and gravitational mass (so they are the same) and also if you are merely being accelerated by a rope or in a gravitational field. there is no experiment that can distinguish the two, so the two are effectively the same. From this you then shift to curved space, and get all the correct results, absolutely the correct results so far.

I think that is more to do with the sugars crystallising from a suspension in the liquid than freezing as such.

Duncan... I think Macbeth would have been pushing it a bit!

probably not, all the metal would probably be bound up in things like haemoglobin. any wires or anything would have to be artificial, and then you are just looking at cyborgs.

he is not rejecting it without understanding it, he is just saying you are wrong, and I agree with him. Nothing you have said has any basis, you have not demonstrated anything new, and there isn't even any evidence for things having a time cycle in the first place. Entropy and the normal laws of physics far better describe the normal course of events than ascribing an arbitrary TC or lifetime to something. Your entire theory adds nothing, predicts nothing, explains nothing and simply overcomplicates what already exists. Now go and find out about Occam's Razor as MrL has pointed out previously, and see why all the scientists here reject your ideas.

but it looks like the universe will not end, which kind of rubbishes your theory.

is that part of the reason for dizziness or light headedness sometimes if you have been exercising really hard then relax suddenly?

the easiest thing to do is just look at the physics of how these substances are formed to get an idea of their abundance, and then look at the reactions that they can be involved in... metals are useless in this sense for all the reasons that have been pointed out over and over again.

my first name is the same as the king in The Scottish Play. and I'm not fake either.

indeed and I don't know anything about servers or how they work, so I can't comment.

maybe. Also, looking at it from the pov of the human eye is bad because of the way our brains are wired. there are lots of tricks that the brain uses in order to improve contrast, for example of one cell on the retina is excited, the signals from surrounding cells will be supressed, leading to better point and edge detection. The same also applies to colours as well... If you see red, then the signals from the surrounding green-detecting cells will be supressed - and these sorts of effects could lead in part to thinking that green is more different from red than blue is, because you never see the colours in that kind of conjunction with one another.

that was my point, he could equally be seeing 540 nm light when he sees green and 630nm light when he sees red... purple could be pure 420 nm light or something, or some XX00XX type thing, which would be a mix of frequencies

their gene pool isn't all that isolated, and I think it would be very dificult to actually come up with a race specific virus. you would effectively have to find either some kind of immune attribute that all chinese and only chinese share, or some similar mechanism only shared by the one race, or find some kind of toxin that only affects that race... to be frank I doubt these things exist.

yes and no. the colours you see can be entirely different to the colours that are. for example a given red might be a pure frequency, or it may be a mixture of colours which your eye interprets as red, since your eye effectively sees in three colours (though the "colours" are quite broad spectra) The brain interprets a given colour by the relative intensities of excitement of the three colour cones in the eye. so a given colour may be seen by either: a pure frequency which excites the red cone by "x" amount and the blue cone by "y" amount, or two colours which excite the relevant cones by the same amount. The colours would look indistinguishable to you, but stick them in a spectrometer and they would look totally different. If I recall correctly, there was an experiment carried out where people were fooled into seeing colours, when all they were really looking at were a couple of yellow spectral lines.

If you take "live" matter apart, all you have is the same stuff as "dead" matter, nothing special at all, there is no real difference, all the physical laws are already the same, the only difference is that cells are more organised.

does anyone have any idea what it is that stops bear's muscles and bones from wasting away when they hibernate?

there isn't a specific theory per se, it is just that we can generate supercool fluids, and by flash freezing, should stop the crystallisation process from occuring. you can see the rate of freezing by the crystal size in certain rocs; stuff that has frozen very rapidly has a glassy look, wheras slow cooling rocks have had much more time to crystallise.

the opening statement was worded incorrectly anyway, notmally it is an immovable object versus an irresistable force.

I see no difference between live matter and dead (not alive) matter, other than live stuff is more organised (ignoring crystals for simplicity)