JaKiri

They're rubbish. If you search, I think you'll find my opinions on the subject.

Photons ARE an exchange particle.

More like different elements. Same things making it up, different properties.

[the greek for butter]pdynamics

Einstein used much the same comparison, it's from a book called Flat World, if memory serves, from the nineteenth century.

Time is mathematically the fourth dimension (as I've said before, that's simply a label, it's A dimension) in general and special relaticity, general especially. Additional dimensions (as I've also said before) are speculated on in Superstring theory, and are curled up in what's called a Calibi Yau space, and not infinite, like our three spatials and time. I'm afraid you're just wrong, for the most part.

Whut?

Most of the particles are varying forms of the standard particles (eg. Tau neutrinos and the like), or different quark combinations.

Personally I think pi, the ratio between the diameter of a circle and its circumference, is much more amazing, and appears in a much wider variety of places, but we all recognise it as 'part of the woodwork', so it's invisible.

Calculus

Hawking. Gets. The. Physics. Wrong.

I presume you meant miles per second btw, as I can't believe that someone would have difficulty changing from kilometers per second to meters per second. I also find it incredible that you don't know what a kilometer is. I'm english, and furthermore I believe the SI has been on the national curriculum for some decades. You also could have looked it up. 'Imperial conversion table' or similar on google would have taken you to the answer rather rapidly. Could you, pray tell, inform us of your age, and not just the day and month of your birth.

Divide by 1.609. The G constant has been in since newton and is simply a constant of proportionality. The language of physics is mathematics. Without the mathematics, there is no physics. pi*r^2. Pi being defined as the ratio between the area of a circle and it's radius squared. Of course, there's no such thing as a perfect circle. Nope. Pi*r^2 is. You can't predict anything with accuracy or precision with words. Numbers are essential. Whilst you cannot reduce the universe to an equation, you can approximate it by them, and that is the point of physics. Numbers are not just another language, they are THE language. Whatever you think, mathematics has superceded all other forms of communication in physics. How do you think we predicted antimatter? Upshots of equations that were made to predict other phenomenon. How do you think we predicted black holes? How do you think we predicted (etc etc etc) ps. Thread moved to pseudoscience, where it belongs.

I like the Casio fx85 MS.

I can't remember my GR enough to comment.

There's no such thing as 'centrifugal force'. Centripetal, yes. I also have no idea what that comparison is trying to say. I also have no idea how you think that argues with my last statement.

Ninja blike strikes again

c cannot be exceeded relative to any other object.

It's general relativity and quantum mechanics that have the problem, not special relativity. The effect you've quoted is called 'Quantum Entanglement', which is perfectly consistent with c being the upper limit for information exchange. The contradiction between GR and QM comes from the quantum fuzz that exists in all space; if we assume both are accurate and then work out what would be happening in the universe, we find out that we just get a chaotic array of gravitational forces all over the place, which obviously isn't happening.

Not when I've had a drinky or two.

The banana dances to all known music.

No sweet luvvin for you

Unless you frequent #planetarion on irc.netgamers.org, probably not.

Get on msn bitch

I've just made an A-team spoof, but you'd not know what it's referring to and I haven't recorded it anyway.