Strange

It doesn't really matter what happens beyond the event horizon as all we can ever hope to know is the mass (and charge and angular momentum) of the black hole. They could turn into singing chocolate penguins, for all we know. Perhaps a theory of quantum gravity would tell us more.

If that is true (and there is no strong evidence that it is, as far as I know) then that may just reflect that it is a pattern that occurs in nature.

I think you are superimposing a pattern you are familiar with on something where it isn't relevant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

Isn't that the wrong way round? I would have expected, "Can you put that wordy explanation into an equation so I can enter it into Excel".

This is known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Or: "I have the right religious attitude, you are a zealot and he is a fanatic". This belief that "I'm right and others are wrong/fanatical" is one of the less appealing characteristics of the religious. This has nothing to do with religion, it is purely about behaviour. You could just as accurately say: The right way to behave is to cultivate Empathy, Understanding and Progress of mankind. The wrong way is to focus on differences, argue against others and create conflicts. No religion needed.

I'm still not sure if you are choosing to have no reaction deliberately. If so, the answer is simple: stop doing that. If it is not a deliberate choice, and it is causing a problem, then I would suggest seeking professional help.

Apparently (well, I was surprised) there has been a lot of reasonably serious research into social networks. The average path length between two people does seem to be around 5 or 6, fairly consistently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-world_experiment But no reason to associate this with the golden mean.

So what you are saying is that some months have more or less than 30 days and it is impossible to take that into account? So we could only use maths in the real world if all months had 30 days? As I say, all you are demonstrating is your own incompetence. You are indeed doing the arithmetic wrong. So, in real life, how is the doctor going to change the prescription? Is he just going to randomly change it to 3? Or 4 billion? Or, maybe, just maybe, he will use maths to work out what is actually required, taking into account all those little details that you find completely baffling, such as how many days there are in a month. You should stop projecting your ignorance onto everybody else.

For example, coincidence has a wide range of meanings related to things happening at the same time. In electronics, you can have a coincidence counter that just increments whenever both inputs are '1'. This may be a regular and deterministic event. On the other hand, it might be a coincidence to meet a friend you haven't seen for years when you are on holiday in Hong Kong. Neither of these appear to have any connection to, or be "governed by" phi, pi or any other number.

Q1-3 ignored as being irrelevant and meaningless. "Yellow"? Really? What century is this? I don't see how either religion or science could justify that. Presumably one religion can justify this and others will claim it is unjustified. That is the trouble with religion: it is subjective, arbitrary and irrational. Science, obviously, has nothing to say on the matter. Other than, perhaps, investigating the truth of your claim, the extent to which it is successful (if it is happening), whether there really were "Aryan" settlers in India, whether "Aryan" means anything, etc. I don't know what that fact has to do with democracy. Or religion. Science could help in finding ways of improving the wealth of the majority (e.g. through education). Whether anyone wants to do that is another problem. I thought you claimed that religious attitudes are all about love and peace, not war. So you admit you were wrong, then?

It is not clear if you are deliberately pretending to be cold and emotionless (for whatever reason) or if you genuinely feel that way. If the latter, then maybe you are somewhere on the autistic spectrum.

Adding 100 more 9s is not the same as adding 100 (it is more like multiplying by 10101).

LMGTFY: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=what+does+xD+mean

These numbers are all irrational (including the square root of 2) which means that their representation is an endless, non-repeating series of digits. They are NOT infinite. They are all small numbers. Note that there is more than one infinity. There are infinitely more real numbers than there are integers, for example.

I am going for about 13. Based on your level of knowledge and vivid imagination....

So you are saying that because you are unable to do simple arithmetic correctly, you think everyone else is equally incompetent and therefore maths is invalid. That is quite an impressive argument.

Energy conservation still applies, so I can't see any reason why the full energy would not be returned to the black hole. (Although I have learned not to take anything for granted when it comes to black holes.) This vacuum state (which I think is only apparent to an observer freefalling through the event horizon - because they do not see Hawking radiation) is the lowest energy state containg no physical particles. But this is a non-zero energy state so virtual particles are still present. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

There is no evidence that it works. And no possible mechanism. I don't see how this would make any difference. Horoscopes are based on the apparent positions of objects so it makes no difference what your model is.

It is also wrong in most cases. I assume that is because cladking is unable to apply maths to the real world.

Thanks ajb. That first paragraph is the explanation I have read before. I wasn't aware that the particle-antiparticle model had been formalised. The paper is here, for anyone else interested: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9907001 (I don't claim to fully understand it, but there are some interesting points made.)

Either particle can fall into the black hole. Note that this analogy comes from Hawking himself, but I don't think it is a completely realistic description of what the maths describes (but the maths is totally beyond me, anyway). Anyway, the idea is that the gravitational field of the black hole provides the energy to create a pair of particles - this is equivalent to the mass of two particles. One of the particles then falls through the event horizon contributing its mass back to the black hole. The other escapes taking its mass/energy away. So the black hole loses the net mass of one particle.

I have never used Scilab, but its remote file access module should allow you to do what you want: http://forge.scilab.org/index.php/p/scicurl/ Otherwise, it might be better (far more efficient) to use a general purpose programming language (Python?) to pull the data to feed into Scilab.

Which is always the case in a stable orbit.

That is one of the many problems with religion.

One: there are stars between the spiral arms. (As shown by observation.) Two: The galaxy does not rotate as a solid disk. (The evidence contradicts that idea as well: the orbital speeds do not vary linearly with distance) Three: you have not done any calculations to support your idea. All you have done is shown Newton's law and then asserted that IF you did the calculations then you would get the answer you want. But people have done the calculations and don't get the answer you claim. Four: Newton's law works. (Except when the full accuracy of GR is requried.)