Strange

This is the difference between proper speed and coordinate speed. But that would be getting even further off topic. It doesn't. (As far as is known.)

Because the distance is increasing. Importantly, the distance is not increasing because the source is moving; the distance is increasing because, at every point during the journey, space is expanding and the distance to be travelled increases (in this case, faster than the light can cover that distance). Does it? I would be happy to be shown what I have misunderstood.

It is one of the conclusions from people attempting to unite general relativity and quantum theory (black holes are a good place to do this because of the extreme conditions). These might be useful: http://www.nature.com/news/astrophys...e-hole-1.12726 http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...cal-physicists Entanglement = Wormholes Cool horizons for entangled black holes by Maldacena & Susskind (PDF)

This is not so much about the information paradox as the firewall paradox (which also comes from some work by Susskind, I believe). He now suggest that, due to quantum effects, the event horizon is chaotic (and kinda porous). Actually, I don't think anyone ever said that black holes "devour everything and disappear". They can, supposedly, radiate energy (Hawking radiation) and so lose mass. But any realistic size black hole will gain mass faster than it is able to radiate it away.

Maybe it already has. It just isn't very bright and is inordinately fond of kittens.

The electrons can't just disappear (can they?) but anyway, even if there are just positive charges, they will be accelerated and generate radiation.

When does that happen?

That is what the diagram in post #3 represents; i.e. things within the light cone are those that can be linked by cause and effect.

No, we live in a four dimensional world (3+1). It isn't "governed" by the time axis. I don't see why. Time travel, as normally understood, means travelling to different positions on the single time axis. If you travelled in a different time dimension then you wouldn't be travelling into your past. I don't know what you would be doing: travelling sideways in a different present? Cause and effect would appear to contradict that. For example, you wrote your post and then, in the future, I wrote mine. But it is a great diagram!

"Local" means that you can consider them to be in inertial frames of reference; i.e. that space-time is flat. There is no exact definition because it means "when you can use flat space-time (i.e. SR) as an approximation". There is no need to mandate an aether. Where do you get the idea that things cannot travel faster than light? From relativity theory. Where does the description of the expansion of space come from? From relativity theory. You can't say you are going to accept some bits of the theory and try to use them to disprove other bits of the same theory. That makes no sense. Except it isn't. It is based upon Maxwell's equations and the simple axiom that these are independent of your state of motion. (Einstein's attitude to aether and the Michelson-Morley experiment seems to have been approximately: "meh".) There are galaxies receding so fast that light from them will never reach us.

Apart from just trying to divide the number by every smaller value (which will work but is very, very inefficient), this is about the simplest (and oldest) prime test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes

You need to use the velocity addition formula: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula#Special_theory_of_relativity Their relative speed would be about 99.999999995% the speed of light. I'll leave it to you to plug that into the Lorentz equation... (it is about 10,000, I think).

Gravity is curvature (which is perceived as a force).

You don't need the "int" when you call the function. Just: cout << "Area "<< cal_area(n);

I assume they mean the angle between the incoming and outgoing directions.

From Anomalous Orbital-Energy Changes Observed during Spacecraft Flybys of Earth (PDF): So it is the angle by which the trajectory is deflected.

Achieving sufficiently high energy and density, I suppose. A lot of analysis was done when the LHC was built (mainly in response to fear mongering, I think, rather than because it was thought a likely possibility). From the linked paper:

You might find what you are looking for here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html The most useful thing in the first link is the discussion of what "species" means; it is a somewhat arbitrary man-made concept so defining whether or not speciation has occurred can be a matter of opinion/definitions to some extent.

That is true. But, as far as I know, those traits are universal. I have never seen anything that might support such a hypothesis. What evidence there is seems to contradict it; for example, people from any genetic background can learn any language (and other aspects of an adopted culture).

Correct

This might be relevant (although it is hard to know what the thread is about) Stephen Hawking: “The Absence of Event Horizons Means There are No Black Holes"

It is possible in principle. If a microscopic black hole was created, it would decay almost immediately. There is no evidence it has happened: http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.3375

Particle is a rather poor analogy. It mainly reflects the fact that a photon is quantized.

I don't think there is much you can do with a SIM card. They have various security features built in so, for example, I don't think it easy to access the code. You might be better off looking at something like the Raspberry Pi or Arduino systems for some practical projects. http://www.raspberrypi.org/ http://arduino.cc/

That is because it is an approximation to the real world using simplifying assumptions (as are all solutions to the EFE). More realistic situations (e.g. a black hole absorbing mass, or two black holes merging) can be modelled using numerical methods.