Radical Edward

too right. Picard was a frog too wasn't he? and was still working on it, hundreds of years after it had been proved.

because if it didn't, it wouldn't be constant.

but I won't claim to, either

you could try telling us where he was right and einstein was wrong. The bit that Einstein objected to, namely the undeterministic bit of QM (since QM is actually completely deterministic apart from this one bit) looks like it is strapped on, doesn't fit really with the rest of it, and I can fully see why he objected to it, especially given the nature of the area at the time.

I'm no Fermat, unfortunately.

excellent... then why aren't we all flying around like superman.... though looking a little more like Mad Pierrot.

Bohr came up with the best method(s) of measuring the height of a tall building using a barometer. but anyway, while what Bohr did was revolutionary, QM was rather a mess of ideas until Dirac came along and made it look pretty.

the direction of time can be demonstrated with a simple two word axiom: shit happens. this is obviously true, and has an inherent link with entropy, which is a subset of, and can derived from the two word axiom above. I will go into a more complete demonstration of this later, when I have time to type it up.

If God had intended us to fly, he would have given us a huge inflatable bag, a good supply of hot air (some people are full of this) and some ballast.

The minimum size that has any meaning is the planck length, though this is only current theory and hence subject to change. as for indestructible particles, no. all particles apart from photons, have an antiparticle, and can be destroyed when they interact.

if you said this, then you could define allsorts of things to be white holes. the reason black holes are black holes are because they are specific types of objects where the gravity is so high that light cannot escape.

no. why are you so obsessed with invading Area51? do yuo live nearby or somethng?

it explains nothing and there is no reason to suggest it. It doesn't follow consistently with any theory I have seen and has no merits. I can't even think of anyway to get off topic and turn it into a proper science thread, so I am moving this to pseudoscience.

there is no point going around imagining you have pointy ears.

studies of vitamin supplements show that they do very little, and some of the synthetic vitamins have such a low uptake into the body, that you would be better not bothering. The key to being healthy, as has been said before, is to just eat properly in the first place - which is clearly a problem; the American obesity problem is not caused by lack of vitamins now is it?

Dogs have evolved to make eye contact.

Nature is not a conscious entity.

well strictly the hole itself doesn't since nothing can escape once it has passed over the EH. If you take the virtual particle argument (because I don't know any other) then they are created in the vincinity of the hole just outside the EH, and some escape the hole's pull.

okies... well imo I wish that no-one had ever mentioned white holes. the only good thing ever to come from a white hole was an episode of Red Dwarf.

this is not the best way to elicit a response from people, especially when your own contribution is not outstanding.

MAKE SURE YOU DON'T DO THIS; IT'S REALLY IRRITATING. heh, sorry.

because your perception doesn't actually have any effect on the things around us.

well the two phenomenon are entirely different, and not really comparable. besides, if he is describing a star, it would be just as easy to call it "a star"

would this be like attatching a hookah pipe to the exhaust?

a white hole would dissipate instantaneously if it had the opposite characteristics of a black hole.