JaKiri

The proof that pi is irrational is probably best expressed as coming from the MacLaurin series, but that would require too much explanation.

....

It could have no end, yet be finite (like the surface of the earth). Indeed, if you accept that at some point the size of the universe was finite (big bang), then it must always be finite.

7, if memory serves, curled up into a calibi-yau space.

I'd say that factor was more to do with the situation; certain elements of behaviour may come down to a genetic level and arise independently (this is where the selfdetermination thing comes in), yet in many more cases things are done because they are seen to be acceptable.

The elephants cock their legs to allow the sun to pass duder. It says so.

It wouldn't be absolute zero, because quite clearly the average energy (terrible, terrible phrase, but I'm tired) of the object isn't nil.

Both. To ignore either factor is a hideous oversimplification. Plus there may be a degree of selfdeterminism.

I'm putting an end to this

It's possible that the heatsink isn't correctly connected. Some Mobo's automatically turn off if they're isn't one.

Given the precise nature of it, the chance (as for any individual event) is nigh on nil. [edit] I'll just get a simplified version of the mathematics done... [edit2] Cancel that, I can't find pen or paper.

The universe isn't infinite in that sense though. It's infinite in that you'll never reach the end if you travel for ever, but in size it is always finite.

Can't be bothered with paint. Assume the planet isn't rotating, and points in the same direction all the time. This means that theres a constantly changing face of the planet, well, facing towards the sun, and, hence, the moon. If the face of the planet towards the moon is changing without the planet rotating, the moon must be in orbit around it.

It wouldn't be just 'hanging' nearby, it would be doing an orbit, just one with exactly the same period as the planet. Even if something like that could happen (can't be bothered to work it out) tidal forces would change the moon's orbit, so it wouldn't be sustainable.

He left a long time ago duder. He also showed a disbelief that anyone else could be right, and he could be wrong, even with the most outlandishly silly things.

It would destroy a good section of mars for a start. As for the climate on mars, since there's no atmosphere and no liquids (none to speak of anyway), I doubt 'any'.

The upper limit of its size is a three body problem. Bugger. I don't see why the orbit would become unstable closer to the sun; even with a constant force, you'll still get SHM, so why not orbits?

Oh

Why not have Einsten Compensators?

I think you should define it other than in terms of 'g' (that's LITTLE g, big G is the gravitational constant), given that g is defined as 'the gravitational attraction of the earth at sea level' If g were smaller, I'd say life would tend to be taller and thinner, and the opposite were it larger.

That's black holes duder, and that's for a given mass

Dude, the CIA ARE a secret service. Unless you mean the Nazi Stormtroopers.

Trouble is, impulse power gives you a speed which will produce relatavistic effects.

I don't see a face. I do see a move to pseudoscience.