[Tycho?]

You would fall, reach the center, continue to "fall" upwards until you reach the distance from the center that you started at, just on the other side. You would then fall backdown, go back up, and keep on repeating this motion. Assuming zero kinetic energy is lost throughout this process.

Why do some many people come to these ludicrous conclusions? If contansts are truely constants, HOW does this prove the universe did not appear by "accident"?

So what?

Uh, you're kinda all over the place there, but currently it is not theoretically possible to transmit information instantaneously, or faster than c. Try looking up quantum entanglement on wikipedia, I think they discuss this issue there.

The US has laws and courts and limitations on power for a very good reason. Warrents are to prevent those in power from abusing their power. Warrents exist because we assume that those in power are fallible and corruptable. Considering the society we live in with these sort of restrictions on power, I think its rediculous to simply say "oh, well the president had a good reason for doing what he did." Why in the world would you have this sort of blind trust? Nixon showed us that presidents are certainly capable of abusing their power. Why should anyone just give Bush free reign on something as important as our privacy?

Well, you could try looking them up. I suggest wikipedia. And no, that equation does not prove the big bang theory. Plus, its an equation, not a theory. It is derived from the theory of Special Relativity.

If it is a granite rock you're dealing with good luck. That stuff is so difficult to break appart, and almost never has obvious cracks already in it, and even heavy machinery has a tough time dealing with it. I'd think you would need to do some drilling, if anything just to give you a place to put a wedge in. The ol expansion method could work, so could the fire/water thing, but I think the latter in particular would just tend to break off small chunks of the rock from the outside, instead of actually splitting it. I would be interested to hear what method you settle on, and how it goes.

I could be waayyy off, but I was under the belief that anything that causes something to be redshifted doesn't decrease the energy of the object, it increases the wavelength of radiation viewed. In the cause of the doppler effect, when an object is moving away, this does not mean the object has less energy, it just means the EM radiation is spread out more. So I dont see how redshift effect could cause something to cool.

So you are explaining an entity which emits virtually no radiation by saying its a huge mass of fusing hydrogen? I think you need to explain this again.

From your point of view time would pass at a normal rate. So it will not change your lifespan.

I agree, altough its not like I'm much of an authority on the matter. Sounds like this is some sort of trap.

I often have 3 or sometimes more books on the go, alternating often. I read in any chuncks, from a couple minutes to a couple hours when I'm in bed or have a book I especially like. To be fair though I've barely read anything for pleasure in the past several months. I've had less free time since university has started, and I also have a very fast internet connection and a ton of stuff I download to distract me. I'm just starting reading again, and I know I'll get some books for christmas so hopefully I'll start up again full force. Since I do enjoy reading. I read sci fi almost exclusively. Although I spend an enourmous amount of time online reading random things on wikipedia, mostly science, but some history and technology as well. Actually I probably read more than I used to, its just online stuff instead of books.

Hahahaha, oh man I can't believe I made that mistake, I've had that formula memorized for like 4 years now. Thanks for seeing that.

I doubt you're actually looking for a force. I was in what might be the same position as you a while ago. Looking stuff up in forces I just got confused. Instead look at kinetic energy. The equation for kinetic energy is energy equals one half mass times velocity squared: E=0.5mv^2 E is energy in Joules. m is mass in kilograms. v is velocity in meters per second (so you'll have to convert your units). If you are looking for a force, you need extra information. But with this formula you can find how much energy a moving body has, and that amount of energy is released when it is stopped. A good example is a meteor impact. You have an asteriod that wieghs 40000kg. Its moving at 15000m/s. How much energy does it release when it hits the earth? Well its .05 x 20000 x 15000 x 15000 = 4.5*10^12 J. Which is a lot. If we want to make that number mean something, lets compare it to a nuclear bomb. The bomb that took our Hiroshima was around 13 kilotons. Meaning it released energy of 13 thousand tons of TNT. Well it turns out that 1 kiloton of TNT is equal to 4.2*10^12J. Do the division, and it turns out that meteor hit the ground with the energy of 1.07 thousand tons of TNT. With that formula you can find the energy of a moving body, and compare it to some unit that you already know, for scale (which you can look up). Of course this may be of no use to you at all. Its just how I learned this sort of thing when I was in a similar situation.

Gravity affects photons. Black holes have an excellent theoretical background, and there are a ton of things we see that we wouldn't be able to explain in any other way (unless this new theory is correct). You should also look up black holes and anti-matter to see what they are before you talk about them.

Good question, not one I could answer though. It would definately be more energy than the electron/positron reaction, but I dont know if it would make more photons, higher energy photons, or both.

What is VORTEX? What is a space time construct? What is a transdimensional gateway? How would you shrink spacetime? It sounds like you just watched an episode of Star Trek and decided to use some of the terms they use. Your post does not make sense.

You might want to re-read the book. It has been possible to create anti-matter for several decades now at CERN. In extremely tiny quantities, but definately created. I remember that passage of the book, and whatever he was talking about I dont think it was anti-matter.

Umm, no? Why would a sphere be different? The only place where there would be no net attraction would be the exact center, same as a ring. In all other places you would pulled to the closest part of the sphere.

Its interesting how much trouble this question gives people. To me it seems pretty darn fundamental, regardless of whether the answer is a yes or a no. But oh well, I'll continue to search, I'll get the answer eventually.