ydoaPs

What makes you think that THIS crop circle isn't a hoax like the others?

Now was that really so hard?

That's not the link to the image. This is: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Neutron_star_cross_section.svg/800px-Neutron_star_cross_section.svg.png

Which is what I said. There exist black holes with extreme tidal forces outside the event horizon. Now that we've got that established, let's get to the question. Is it possible for a black hole to have tidal forces strong enough to rip apart atom (or even constituent nucleons)?

You got me; tidal forces don't exist.

Except for the extreme tidal forces which are the subject of the thread.

Not proof, but still an awesome experiment:

Good thing I wasn't talking about what goes in inside the event horizon, but rather talking about what happens before it even gets there. This is no different than what I said above. The question is whether or not the tidal forces are strong enough to overcome the nuclear forces.

If matter falling into a black hole got spaghettified to the point of being quark-gluon plasma, would that have a different radiation signature than normal matter?

Can quarks exist as a quark-gluon plasma? I thought the gluons would make the quarks bound. I was using "spaghettified matter" as anything that was spaghettified on its way to the event horizon.

That's a beautiful baseless assertion you have there. Really quite stunning.

Are the tidal forces of a black hole that cause spaghettification strong enough to rip apart the bonds holding the atoms of the the spaghettified matter together? If so, what about the bonds of the nuclei? Can any non-elementary matter make it to the event horizon of a Black Hole? I'm thinking that it might be strong enough to cause fission, but not strong enough to break down all matter into elementary constituents since the amount of energy it takes to pull out a quark from a bound system is enough to create a partner for it to bind with.

Really? Because I was under the impression that there were thousands of gods in the Hindu tradition (the most common being the henotheistic Vishnava sect which worships Vishnu). And in the traditions where they're all aspects of the same god, it's usually either Vishnu or Brahman, iirc. So, a god, yes. The sanskrit word for god, I don't think so. edit: the actual Sanskrit for "god" is huta.

If you take the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity, you get zero. f(x)=1/x for x being infinity doesn't work because infinity isn't a number. If you take the limit of 1/x as x approaches 0, you don't get an answer because the left and right limits do not match. f(x)=1/x for f(0) is undefined.

In metaphysics, it's the separation between states.

"Science tells us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance. Theology, on the other hand, induces a dogmatic belief that we have knowledge where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe. Uncertainty, in the presence of vivid hopes and fears, is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales. It is not good either to forget the questions that philosophy asks, or to persuade ourselves that we have found indubitable answers to them. To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it." ~ Bertrand Russell

I was unaware that this: was a religious document. How does radioactive decay support reincarnation and disprove the observed fact of evolution?

No, it doesn't.

Which Christianity?

In 9 pages, have we ever gotten the claim for which evidence is desired?

Jesus was dyslexic; He was talking about his dog.

I don't think you get what I'm saying. Even "credible" eyewitness testimony is incredibly unreliable. Then add on the time since the incident.

However, his truth doesn't necessarily correspond with what actually happened. Memory is a fickle fickle thing.

1) He looks very old. Time does wonders on memory. 2) What was his disposition towards Unidentified Flying Objects prior to the event in question? Confirmation bias does wonders as well. 3) How does he know it was an alien craft? Did he see them through the UFO's windows?

Emphasis mine