zapatos

Join a local Toastmasters club. http://www.toastmasters.org

I think it's a great analogy. There is a lot of confusion about how the gravity of a black hole really affects those things around it. The only part I'm not sure about is when you said 'without the mass to beat it'. The way I always thought of it was that as you approached the event horizon, the only way to avoid crossing over was if you had sufficient velocity. Even two black holes will combine if their velocity does not allow them to pass by or orbit each other.

I don't think pedophiles are necessarily attracted to the church. From what I can find the church has a similar ratio of child molesters to that of the general population. I think there is just more focus on the church due to the fact that they are a church, and that the church conducted a cover up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

A friend of by brother's was called 'dirt'. It was short for 'dog dirt', and he got the name because failed to bathe on a regular basis.

When I was in high school I jokingly called a friend Pugsley (character on The Addams Family). Being socially consious she quickly grabbed my arm and said "Knock it off! Names like that stick!". To this day, people are still calling her Pugsley. And she is in her 50s. And she is still mad at me.

Nothing that is above the surface of the sun will notice if the sun turns into a black hole. On the other hand, if a comet comes along and passes closer to the black hole than what was previously the surface of the sun, the comet will experience a stronger gravitational field.

Gravity increases as you get nearer the center of mass. On the surface of the sun you will feel the greatest gravitational pull. If you move as far from the sun as the earth is, the gravity will be less because you are further from the center of mass. If you burrow into the sun, the gravity will be less because now some of the mass is over you head. But if the sun shrinks, then you can still be on the surface, but also get closer to the center of mass. The gravity doesn't increase if it turns into a black hole. It increases if you get closer to the center of mass. A black hole is just so small that you can get VERY close to its center of mass.

If the sun turned into a black hole as you said in your original post, then the mass would remain the same. If it the same mass, it is the same gravitational pull. That is why there would be no impact on the earth. Yes, he was right.

At earth's current distance the earth will continue to orbit. Doesn't matter if the sun turns into a black hole or if the diameter increased 10 fold. The gravitational pull on earth will remain the same.

Light that is within the event horizon of the black hole cannot escape. The event horizon would be near what is now the center of the sun. The extreme gravity of a black hole is not experienced until you are very near it.

Wow! Outstanding in every way. Thanks for posting!

If you are going to silence half the word for censorship, wouldn't it make more sense to silence the word 'ass' and say the word 'hole'?

The word 'asshole' is often censored on television by silencing half the word. I find it funny that they let the word 'ass' be said but silence the word 'hole'.

They would spin off one at a time, starting with Mercury and working their way out. Given their orbital velocities, once they were no longer constrained by the gravity of the sun they would leave the solar system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction If gravity does indeed travel at the speed of light as expected, it is interesting to think that if the sun were to suddenly disappear, the earth would continue to orbit around the point where the sun had been for for an additional eight minutes, and the planets would fly off into space one at a time.

That is probably my most common dream in the category of 'dreams I don't like'. It occurs slightly more often than scary snakes, and me realizing I'm about to be caught cheating with some beautiful model. (I'm sure if I asked my wife if it was okay with her if I had sex with a beautiful model, given the opportunity, she would manage to stop laughing long enough to say yes.)

No, it doesn't lead to one logical conclusion. It leads to one possible logical conclusion. Can you please point out how I just did that? From my perspective I am simply not accepting your reasoning. Can you please point out where I just did that? Wow. And you complain about me being non-scientific? Well, case closed. I guess we can shut down this topic. On a side note, if you are changing font size for parts of your post, can you please stop doing so? It makes it difficult to respond without formatting errors. Thanks.

Sorry, I've read your post a couple of times and I am still missing it. How does knowing that the chances of remaining a theist into adulthood are very high, tell you 'why' they are remaining a theist?

I would have to disagree. And the reason is that your question is a bit of a straw man. doG said "...everyone I've ever met that was a theist believed so because that's what they were taught." Since Moontanman was able to draw his own conclusion, I think the question "Why can't they have been taught something as children then drawn their own conclusions as adults, just like you have?" was quite appropriate. My question address the statement that "...a theist believed so because that's what they were taught." I am asking about the reason. Your question does not address the reason people remain theists after adulthood, only whether or not they do. I am questioning why doG and Moon felt they were capable to making their own decisions, but that theists were not. You are questioning if people ever change their religion, which was never in question. Ah, now I know why you might think yourself to be special. It is because you don't belong to that majority of the world's population that is "irrational and "superstitious".

Yep. I guess we fed him so much that he lost track of what he said.

Wait. What?

Yes, it came from God himself.

Just to be fair... Being an animal is not a 'fact', unless you are saying that it is a 'fact' that certain humans created a category and put themselves in it in an attempt to bring order to their understanding of the world. Why can't other humans have a different opinion on how to categorize life?

I think that 'science' has answered that question to its own satisfaction (see post #4). If others don't like that answer then they are free to come up with their own answers. To me, my wedding band is jewelry. To my wife it is a symbol. To a jeweler it is piece of merchandise. It is possible for a single thing to have multiple valid descriptions which vary according to a person's perspective.

Damn. If empathy is all I was able to convey in that post then I am going to give up debate. Without a doubt.