Strange

The use of objective data rather than opinion is a skill common to scientists. Funnily enough, that is what I am asking you to do: present some data. Well, of course many religions and myths involve the Moon. And the Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Oh, and the fixed stars. And rivers and mountains. And seas. And rocks. And trees. All for rather obvious reasons.

How about the statistical analysis that supports the claim that "most symbols have lunar roots"? You have done this, haven't you? I mean, before posting on a science forum?

One example is Planck units: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units In which case it is 1 Planck length / Planck time. (By definition.) Other choices can be made to give the same result. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units

There was a lot of news about it at the time.

Most of them? In that case, you will be able to show the statistical analysis you have done that supports this claim. It should be very interesting. Your, ahem, "linguistics" is the exact equivalent of numerology. As is your ability to find the patterns you want in any image. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

Very possibly all parts. As well as experiencing warmer weather. And wetter weather. And drier weather. Yep, that appears to be the position. That sounds like a ludicrous claim. Perhaps one of you would like to provide a source for it. But they are questions based on Tim's own-made up version of climate change that he always argues against. Yes. Uranium is pretty much everywhere is the environment and causes little or no direct harm by itself. It releases radon gas as a decay product and this can be very dangerous if allowed to build up. Getting off topic, but this is quite interesting ... It has always been in the food chain simply because it is present in nearly all soils and many plants concentrate it (for unknown reasons). So people typically consume about 1 or 2 micrograms per day. You are more likely to be exposed to high levels of uranium if you live near a coal-fired power plant or a phosphate fertilizer factory. It is also used to colour glass.

That is not what an increase of 1 degree means. I mean, really, if you don't even understand that, don't you think you should learn a little more before joining the discussion?

Here is an early example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_One_%28software%29 The problem is that writing code is not the hard part: the hard part is defining the problem in sufficient detail. The reason that products the The Last One fail is because you still have to define what the code has to do, in detail, in some form. And that means you end with another programming language. But there are uses for automatic generation of programs. A common one in my industry is the generation of random but valid code sequences for test purposes: the idea being to generate software tests that provide good coverage. Another example is the use of genetic methods to find the best algorithm for an application.

Even ignoring red-shift, the object would rapidly disappear. It will emit a finite number of photons before it falls through the event horizon and will therefore disappear from view. If it appeared to be stuck at the event horizon it would somehow have to emit an infinite number of photons just before it fell through.

So why bring him up on a science forum? This is a science forum, not a venue for comparing the opinions of local ex-politicians.

You have been given more detailed explanations, which you chose to ignore. I didn't see much benefit in repeating them. I thought the thread was about the existence of black holes. If you want to change the subject ... We can observe things that have all the characteristics of black holes. And we could, in principle, observe something fall to the event horizon and disappear. (I was tempted to say "fall through the event horizon" but that would imply we could see it after it had passed the horizon, which obviously isn't the case.)

What would be the advantage of that? There are already plant-based foods that are high in protein, fat and pretty much anything else we might get from meat.

Why do people who don't like the science keep criticizing some almost-unknown foreign ex-politician? What's that all about? Perhaps you could focus on the science. What do you think is wrong? CO2 does't absorb infra-red? The levels aren't increasing? They are increasing but it isn't due to human activity? It is increasing due to human activity but isn't driving climate change? It is driving climate change but it doesn't matter? Or ... ? And when you have clarified that, perhaps you could show where the existing evidence is wrong and present the evidence that supports your position.

That is not how black holes, and event horizons, form. Not quite. Again, you are confusing what we can observe with what exists. Not true.

I was saying exactly the opposite. Is your reading comprehension that poor (which might explain why you don't understand the evidence) or was it a deliberate misrepresentation?

Even if we ignore the flaws in that description, all you are saying is that we cannot observe objects at the event horizon, not that the event horizon doesn't exist. But then nothing is at the event horizon for very long, so that hardly matters.

I have heard people say that (as spring here is [was] usually cold and wet). Funny.

Only Tim.

That's a really good write up (IMHO )

Still a fan of the straw man fallacy, I see.

Why do you think that is the case? There are a lot of large companies who are able to spend large amounts of money (and maybe do) on research that would undermine the consensus. Why are so few researchers chasing those dollars? Why isn't there a significant amount of evidence coming out supporting the continued use of oil, gas and coal? Maybe, just maybe, it is because science isn't quite as corrupt as you think it is.

Actually, it isn't. As you say, the mass of the black hole, while being large, is insignificant compared to the rest of the stars in the galaxy. It would. But the mass of the black hole is so large (at this distance) that any other stars that are there will not have a significant effect. Because it (roughly) balances out: all the mass outside the orbit ends up pulling equally in all directions so has no net effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem In this case, as imatfaal says, it is only an approximation. You would need to do a very detailed calculation and/or simulation to work out the overall effect. But it is almost certainly very small - especially for the stars very close to the black hole (because of the inverse square law). Why does it need justifying?

Corrct. The only reason c is in the equation is to relate the different units (dimensions) of mass and energy. The value of c we use is based on the arbitrary choices we made when defining metres, kilgorams, seconds, etc. A different choice of units can lead to the value of c being 1, but it is still 1 length per time.

Maybe I am slow to understand. That doesn't shift the requirement away from you to be clear when explaining your idea. It is not up to us to be "mind readers" and fill the gaps in your explanation. If someone genuinely doesn't understand a term you use why berate them for stupidity when you could just as quickly provide a link to clarify.

1. So you expect me to do your work, gathering your evidence for you? No thanks. 2. I am not an expert in many old religions but I am not aware of any prophecies regarding the "coming sun". Perhaps you could be more explicit about that the prophecy is. 3. It would hardly be surprising if most relgilions and myths mention the Sun as a prominent feature: it is a pretty important object in our lives.