Strange

There has been some discussion of that before: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85716-blacks-holes-yesno/

But it doesn't say one of each. Hydrogen and oxygen (and water, and beer, bread, etc) are non-count nouns. It is ungrammatical to say "one hydrogen". If they had meant one hydrogen atom then they would have written "one hydrogen atom".

Exactly. One of the things you are told over and over is to answer the question that was asked - not the question you think should have been asked! I assume, also, that the students would have been introduced to this sort of informal "word equation" (this is not a term I have come across before but seemed pretty transparent in the context).

Science and philosophy are bot valuable as ways of gathering knowledge - philosophy helps to define what science (and knowledge) is and how it should be performed. I don't see how religion is valuable in the same way. It is obviously important to some people (and it is therefore an interesting topic of study). But it doesn't tell us anything useful about the world.

Is this why it has taken you 9 years to reply to this thread?

It is slightly more complicated than that. If I understand you correctly, you are looking at the energy to dissociate NaCl into its constituent elements. The dissociation energy can be calculated as shown here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/boneng.html If you wanted to try this (I wouldn't recommend it) you would need to melt the NaCl (by heating it to about 800C) and then use electrolysis to separate the sodium and chlorine. Both of these are dangerous chemicals so this is not advisable unless you know what you are doing. (And it doesn't seem as if you do.)

How do you know there is no explanation? Maybe the explanation is one you have rejected out of hand. Maybe the explanation is something you haven't thought of yet. Maybe the explanation is to be discovered. But if there is truly no explanation (i.e. it is magic) then it doesn't belong on a science forum.

People on the forum have also suggested (testable) hypotheses for what these "anomalies" are, and why they might look the way they do. You have rejected any mundane explanations in favour of plasma-based aliens (or something equally unsupported). The reason people may have made inferences about what you claim these anomalies are, is because you are repeatedly and consistently evasive. You say something and when asked about it, deny that is what you meant. (There may be a future for you in politics.)

But the "why" in this case is very clear: decimal is based on powers of 10 (and so we multiply/divide by 10) and binary is based on powers of 2 (and so we multiply/divide by 2).

We were talking about different things. Janus was, quite rightly, pointing out that you could also take into account orbital and rotational energy. I was pointing out that you use of linear velocity and kinetic energy was unnecessary (but it is quite possible I misunderstood what you were trying to say). Please stop doing that in serious discussions. Which is what I suggested in post #5; your original post did appear to try to include the speed of each object.

Credit to Sensei for his correct answer! I was about to point out that IF the event were subject to cosmological expansion then then it would mean that the event happened slightly earlier (and closer) than reported value (depending how the 260 M ly figure is defined). I *think* (very rough calculation) it would make a difference of about 2 million light years, which is probably similar to the error bounds on the distance measurement.

I don't know what "start to reach the speed of light" means. You can never reach the speed of light. However, relativistic effects occur at alls speeds. They are just not very noticeable when driving around. Not correct: relativistic mass increase will not increase your gravity. (After all, in your own frame of reference, you are not moving.) You cannot go "into" a black hole (well, you ca but you can't get out again). And, except in the case of a really tiny black hole, the Hawking radiation will be undetectable.

It follows a "straight line" in curved space-time.

There has been a huge amount of research on this (and there are some great simulations out there). Here is the first result I found: http://www.astro.cardiff.ac.uk/research/gravity/tutorial/?page=4blackholecollisions

It is a consequence of the equivalence of mass and energy. If you increase the energy of a system, then you increase its mass. In fact, this is where nearly all the mass of atoms comes from: the binding energy of the nucleons.

But it isn't actually a fabric. That is just a metaphor. It has no material properties and so cannot be more or less dense. What is the difference between a "sphole" and a black hole?

Well, that's a different question, isn't it? If you calculate the "relativistic mass" of the Earth-Moon system then it will be greater than the rest mass of the two bodies. This is why the gamma appears in the equation for momentum when you take relativity into account: it accounts for the energy of the bodies as relativistic mass.

And there is the flaw in your argument.

Momentum is defined in terms of rest mass. So, no. Also, you are measuring things from your frame of reference, so if you want to consider kinetic energy, you would have to consider the velocity of both the Earth and the Moon relative to you. The velocity of the Moon relative to Earth is only relevant if you are measuring things from an Earth-centred frame of reference. In which case the momentum would be based on the (rest) mass of the Moon only. (Which is why the question in post #3 is relevant.)

Are they?

The frame of reference can change the equation. Anyway, momentum is [math]\gamma m_0 v[/math]; where [math]m_0[/math] is the total (rest) mass of the system.

Very good.

You clearly have a clear idea of what philosophy is, so this sort of comment seems out of place. That (and your other valid concerns) is not the fault of this forum, rather it is in the nature of people who have not studied philosophy to to think that it means random speculations of the sort you describe. It would be good, perhaps, if someone with some knowledge created a series of posts to define what philosophy is (e.g. the art of questioning and analysis, the use of formal logic, etc.).

Obviously not. Perhaps you should read what I wrote. Physics does this all the time. I second the advice that you go and do some basic courses in mathematics and physics (or, perhaps, the scientific method). There are many good online courses now, provided by high quality universities. It is ironic that you should ask for evidence when all you do is make grand claims based on very little knowledge of either mathematics or physics. (And zero evidence.)

Oops! I am so used to 1x0 posting incorrect maths, that I jumped to the conclusion that this was wrong, too. This can be proved mathematically. (That is the great thing about maths; things can actually be proved.) So why would you need a physical example? But if you insist... If you have 3 friends with 1 apples each, how many apples are there? 3 (3 x 1 = 3) If you have 1 friend with 2 apples, how many apples are there? 2 (1 x 2 = 2) If you have 3 friends with 2 apples each, how many apples are there? 6 (3 x 2 = 6) If you have 1 friend with no apples, how many apples are there? 0 (1 x 0 = 0) OK?