Strange

Obviously. I don't know what you mean by "SMBH radius mass". The radius of the event horizon of a black hole is proportional to its mass. Nothing can escape the event horizon. I think you need to read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole to clear up your misunderstandings. (Probably also available in your native language.)

The radius is about 1.2x1010 m. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius#Parameters And here: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Schwarzschild+radius+4000000+solar+mass The closest stable orbit is, I think, at twice the Schwarzschild radius. So any matter closer than that is falling into the black hole. But I assume that would still be included as part of the accretion disk so the minimum radius is the radius of the event horizon. Your conversion is incorrect for some reason. 36 light-hours / 3000 = 1.295x1010 m See here: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=36+light-hours+%2F+3000+in+metres Looks like you have the wrong number for light hours: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+light-hours++in+metres

Not really, no.

That sounds an awful lot like you are trolling.

You have this exactly the wrong way round. There is only one colour. But you are insisting there are two different ones.

it is usually pretty clear if they are. Apart from just being anecdotal, all that says is that some people are not content very often. It doesn't imply contentment is learned.

It is not a matter of perspective. The two squares REALLY ARE the same colour. If you think otherwise then you are deluded.

No, they are the SAME colour. It is delusional to say they are different. If you think your imagination trumps reality then I guess you have a pretty loose grip on reality.

I don't believe that is true. Or at least, the probability is so small it can be ignored. (About comparable with the Tooth Fairy being real.)

People who criticise other for reading books, studying, and working hard to learn something always sound to me as if they are saying "I am too lazy and/or stupid to learn anything so I am going to say that being ignorant allows me to be more open minded". Sorry, but no.

Er, no. The whole point is that the science we have learned(*) (and actually done) IS falsifiable. That is what makes it science. The stuff you re convinced is true because you believe is. Is not falsifiable and therefore not scientific. (*) Not sure why people like you think that learning things is somehow a bad thing, and throw out things like "read a book" as if it were an insult. Again, you can call that "energy" if you want. You can call it "chocolate" or "pumbleflutz". I don't care. But you are not talking about the concept called "energy" in science, so it is irrelevant. Not sure why. It is the fact we can test things that tells us that we experience illusions. For example, I expect you think that the squares labelled A and B are different colours: But they are exactly the same: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion So you can choose to trust your instincts over reality, but you will sometimes be wrong.

Science knows quite a lot about the subject. And energy, in the scientific sense, can be demonstrated, measured, tested, etc. (Note that nothing is "proven" in science. And axioms are not proven by definition.) And it is silly to make accusations about "I read it in high school" in response to the statement that many of us HAVE DONE THESE TESTS OURSELVES, in other words we didn't just read it. I never said that. 1. I never said anything about what is taught. 2. I never said anything about pain or pleasure. If your only tactic is to argue against things that were never said (a "straw man" argument) then you don't have much of a case.

How would that work, exactly? Atoms with six and three-quarter electrons? Or ... It is nothing to do with hubris. We know how atoms "work". I don't think anyone claimed that.

But we know that many things we experience are not real or true. For example optical illusions. And false memories. And ... That is why science has been successful, because it removes those sort of hitman biases and foibles.\ But it is not just an assumption. Many of us have actually tested the things we read. I don't just accept everything I read as true. I apply critical thinking and look for confirmation. You can call that energy. But that has nothing to do with the concept used in science.

I have no idea.

That is the size of the radio source. I don't know how that relates to the accretion disk which is, I assume, much larger.

Babies sleeping contentedly? (Which you reject for some unknown reason.)

I would publish it as widely as possible, and discuss it with your peers, as the best way of getting feedback to improve the idea. The idea that someone could come up with a valuable new idea all alone is pretty unlikely.

The 10 µas figure is the angular size of the black hole radius (which would be about 12 million km). The 37 µas figure is the diameter of the radio source - from the accretion disk and/or jets (depending which models are correct). I have no idea. The Meyer et al. 2007 paper is here: http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2007/39/aa8009-07/aa8009-07.html There is also the added complexity that a black hole appears larger than it is (due to gravitational lensing). I think this doubles the apparent size of the black hole. More here: http://www.eventhorizontelescope.org/science/physical_models.html

We already have a theory explaining this - a property one with mathematics and evidence and everything. Gravity is not a particle in any theory we have. Just asserting this does not make it true. Evidence needed. What is non-electromagnetic space" and how does it differ from "electromagnetic space"? Why would graviton annihilation do this? What evidence do you have that gravitons vibrate? What are "electromagnetic frequencies"? What is this field? Why would this dilate the field? What does it mean to dilate a field? There is no reason to think it is. We already have a theory for light (all electromagnetic radiation) and it has nothing to dow tis gravity. Do you have any evidence they are related? What do you mean by "large"? Are you just comparing two bodies with the same mass but different radius? This is fully explained by Newton's equation. What are you adding to this? The mystery is why anyone would come up with this random nonsense.

But if, for example, a new theory predicted an inverse cube law for gravity then this is not consistent with the predictions of Newtonian theory or GR or measurement (reality). Sometimes it is easy to test a new hypothesis against data (reality) but often it is easier to test it against the predictions of existing theory (which is known to be correct).

If you copied the text, largely verbatim, then you could be sued for copyright infringement. If you rewrite the whole thing in your own words, then there would be nothing he could do. (My understanding is that mathematical equations are not, in general, protected by copyright.) But there is no mechanism to protect ideas. This frequently happens. And it is often the case that the name most associated with a theory is not the first person to have come up with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy The "other guy" was Wallace. He sent his work to Darwin who then presented it (as Wallace's) along with notes about his own work, at the Royal Society. Hard to say who should get priority. It should probably be called the Darwin-Wallce theory of evolution by natural section. It is not clear why Darwin's name is remember but Wallace is largely forgotten.

Inventions, yes. Via patents are whatever. Scientists may occasionally feel the need to publish before rivals working on the same thing, but that is not quite the same thing. No one is going to accuse them of stealing the idea, because they publish a paper based on their ten years of research a week after someone else publishes their similar research. There are, of course, occasional examples of plagiarism. But they are usually pretty obvious. All it protects if the copyright in the published text. Not the idea.

I was asking "Dr Science" not you. As Ten Oz says, that has been discussed before and is not completely convincing. (Feel free to go back and address the arguments made but I am not going to start rehashing them now.)

It is possible, but seems very unlikely, that there are stable transuranic elements. All the evidence suggests that atoms with molecular weights above 92 are very unstable. But any such elements can be put in their place on the periodic table. So, yes, that is what I meant. I can't see anything that is evidence for another civilisation being more advanced than us. Just an assertion. I suppose if they came here, in some sort of advanced spaceship, then they would be more technologically advanced in terms of space travel (kinda obviously). But as the opening post of the thread was about us going to other planets, it seems more likely it would be the other way round.