Radical Edward

It is nothing to do with einstein and more to do with money and available technology. Even if the universe were purely newtonian, and for all the things we have achieved in space, it mostly is, it would take alot of effort to even get to mars. One of the main issues at the moment is power availability... all methods of getting into space at the moment are chemical, and this is a really bad way to do it. Once someone finally coughs up enough money to build a superconducting launch ramp (I have seen viable, but hugely expensive proposals) then space travel will become much easier. Failing that, a space elevator (I heard recently that with the improvement of material science, this is becoming a feasible possibility now) would be the best thing. Once we actually have a foothold off world (the ISS is not even a fingernail grip, proverbialy speaking then space travel and technology development will zoom ahead. It may be that we never travel past c, but it doesn't really matter, we will still end up colonising the galaxy, at the very least.

some equations? those would be the Lorentz transforms, and I have mentioned them many times. they are in an announcement in this section. Light doesn't have mass, that is how it travels at c

DO THE MATHS. It's that simple, really. people don't come up with these ideas ad hoc like you do. It is all part of the scientific process, see.

you don't understand what they said. Just but Principles of Optics by Born and wolf, and that will teach you everything you need to know.

you can't travel at c, because you have mass. stick it in the lorentz transforms and see

It is indeed true that you don't need an atomistic model to calculate many observed phenomenon, however this is a completely different position from yours. you more or less advocate rewriting the entire model (into one hthat you have not even shown fits) in order to do what? exactly? your model does not describe anything useful at all, and doesn't even have a mathematical foundation to it, and from what I can see, doesn't even have any basis. Maxwell's equations are already beautiful and elegant enough

as MrL says, they would mostly bounce off one another. however if you are interested in the stability of atoms like that, look up the semi empirical mass formula.

not yet, they are just hypothetical at the moment, as it would fit in with a "quantum model" Merging QM and GR is proving elusive.

this isn't a south-park inspired "search for the c*******" is it?

far from it, particles do have colour, however it is the electrons that deal with the electromagnetic interaction. There is more documented evidence and modelling that you can shake a stick at. Try explaining and quantifying the sodium lines, Lamb Shifts and so on in any other way.

okay, you've explained a universal phenomenon with a different name. you still haven't backed it up or said anything about the magnetic field working differently to the one we all know and love.

that is the inter quark force. it is just a tag because it is conveneient and there are some parallels, but there is nothing to do with the colour of an object as you can see it.

I refer you to my earlier statement about whatever you talk about not being a black hole. I ask, no, implore you to read the announcement in the astrophysics section.

the majority of higher animal "evolution" is done by sexual reproduction, and not random mutations.

like Scroobious and Runcible?

and absolutely nothing to back it up. whatever you describe isn't a black hole. you can't go round calling two entirely different things by the same name

black holes are not at absolute zero. the other two statements could arguably be interpreted, but do not really represent a physical explanation of a what black holes are. actually explain what a black hole is, what it's properties are, and why it has the properties it does.

what is obvious and what isn't

something along the lines of a series of interconnected objects that are energetically unfavourable.

now you are making unjustified statements about the mind and perception. what is so special about them that they can be teleported back in time, but not matter. Furthermore, your experiment doesn't appear to have any detectable results rfom what I can see. incidentally MrL hasn't even commented on the viability and possible paradoxes of time.

they are manifestations of Einstein's General Relativity, objects calculated at the special case for which the density and hence gravity is so high that light cannot escape. see the announcement in astronomy THAT'S ALL, BORING EH?

I got it from physics lectures, I forget which course now, Astro maybe. I sugest poking round the physics section of a library, I am sure there are a wealth of books discussing this area since it is pretty popular and interesting.

you seem to lack a working knowledge of what either a black hole, or the Electromagnetic field is. I suggest that you refer to the astrophysics announcement on black holes. I put it there for people like you.

nice pedantry I am at work when I post those so I rarely get time to proof read

one of the things I have never seen a IDT proponent, or any other "religious scientist" do is submit his ideas to peer review. In refusing to do this, they attempt to use science as a weapon against itsef, while simultaneously ignoring one of the most fundamental tenets.