Strange

The perhaps you can present your theory (in the Speculations forum) and show us how well its predictions match observation.

If you analyse more stars, you will get a more accurate estimate. Although, when you look at the error bounds, there isn't a very significant difference between these values. It is a very complex and detailed paper so I have only skimmed it. However, the velocities of stars some distance from the black hole are determined by the mass of the black hole plus the surrounding stars. It is the mass of the surrounding stars that is referred to as the "extended mass". No, that is not what it means.

Your entire post is pretty loose and lacking in evidence or theory.

It isn't. From the outside you would pass without even noticing. From the inside you can only get further way. As I say, I think this is most easily understood in Gullstrand-Painlevé coordinates: http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html

The main culprits for spreading depleted uranium around are the military. And I don't think they are famous for saying their products are "safe". And of course, it isn't the nuclear industry that causes most exposure to radioactive materials: that would be coal and gas. Another good reason for getting away from fossil fuels (to try and drag this back on topic).

It means a 1 degree increase in average temperature. Not, as you seem to think, that everywhere will be 1 degree warmer than it is now.

As far as I know, there is no evidence that anything can move backwards in time. I haven't heard anti-particles referred to as holes. (*) But in semiconductors you can have positive charge carriers called holes, which are where an electron is "missing". These holes can move around and are important current carriers. The hole is not "nothing", just a place where there is 1 less electron than normal. The positrons are matchede by an equal number of electrons, so the net charge is zero. (*) Just Googled this, and apparently Dirac described them this way More here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/389/positrons-versus-holes-as-positive-charge-carriers

The universe appears to have 4 dimensions, so I don't know where you get that idea.

Can you provide a reference where those things were predicted. I won't. I will look at the evidence you provide. Not really. It is likely that where I live will continue to have more mild winters than in the past and, possibly, drier summers. Which is nice. (For me, anyway; it causes some problems for wildlife and agriculture.)

1. Stop smoking weed. 2. See a doctor.

It describes exactly the same thing as the Schwarzschild metric. Yes, science can be hard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm

I still don't understand what that means. Both metrics describe space-time outside a spherically symmetrical object. What does "local" mean?

This is true, and as the black hole exists from the perspective of someone falling into it, it must exist from our point of view as well. (Your link is broken, so I don't know what the diagram shows.)

Authoritative sources say otherwise. Translation: you can make up stories to connect unconnected words. Citation needed. As for the rest: pure crackpottery. Of course not. They never do.

But there is clearly no connection between distance and eccentricity.

The best way of achieving that is to improve wealth and education (especially of women).

I don't understand what you are saying. The Schwarzschild metric applies to one single black hole. As do all the other solutions (as well as those mentioned earlier, there are the Lemaitre coordinates, the Gullstrand–Painlevé coordinates and others). They all describe the same thing in different ways, so I'm not sure how you are saying some are valid and others aren't. The Gullstrand–Painlevé metric is arguably more intuitive.

All orbits are elliptical. There is no connection between distance and eccentricity. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_orbit#Solar_System It shows nothing of the sort.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Moses Try again. That falls under the category of "not even wrong". Russian and English are Indo-Eurpoean (so obviously share some features). Japanese is usually grouped with the Altaic languages but may be an isolate. Pure coincidence. Why not include mound, mind, mint, mend, munt, mount, mentor, meant ... You see, there are far more words with a similar phonetic structure but with unconnected meanings. So, once more, you are just cherry-picking words that fit a pattern you have decided on. This is not just unscientific, it is anti-scientific. I find this sort of humbug totally offensive. (And mouth is derived from a proto-Indo-Eurpoean word for chin; nothing to do with the moon.) Because linguistics is a science and uses detailed statistical and historical analysis to determine possible relationships between languages.

That doesn't really mean anything. Unless you treat the length of a line as a vector, in which case negative length simply means a line pointing in the opposite direction.

The Schwarzschild metric? That is only valid for a non-rotating, isolated, eternal and unchanging black hole. Not a completely realistic model. And, of course, it can be proved that alternative coordinate systems are mathematically equivalent. So you have no basis for picking one and rejecting the others.

So only the coordinate system that supports your claim is valid?

Great film with a fantastic soundtrack.

But they don't have a close meaning. Moses means (probably) "son". You have invented a meaning based on an (unsourced) claim about a hat he wore. There is no semantic connection between crescent and cow, other than the one you have invented. You also ignore the fact that you translate these words into English where the claimed connection disappears completely, thus completely destroying your argument. And demonstrating that this is a classic example of cherry-picking evidence. You are also using modern pronunciations of words and ignoring any changes that might have occurred. It is obvious that if you are loose enough in your phonetic matching and allow a broad enough semantic range you can "prove" anything. Like the crackpots who claim that Basque and Japanese are related, or that the language of Eden was French (or Javanese, or Pictish, or whatever) using exactly the same sloppy technique.