Strange

You might be interested in the sort of methods used in computational chemistry (which attempt to do just what you are talking about): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_chemistry

Take the solar system as an example. Pretty much all the mass is in the Sun and so you get a the expected change in orbital speed, dependent only on distance. That is because the mass inside the orbit is the same for all planets (it is the mass of the Sun). However, if there was significant mass distributed throughout the solar system, then the further out you went, the more mass there would be within the the orbit. And so velocities wouldn't fall off as expected. (It is important to note that only mass inside the orbit has any effect.) The latter is what we observe with galaxies (and galaxy clusters) meaning that the mass isn't concentrated in the most visbily massive bulge in the middle.

Not really. Which is why I include the last point about knowing the limitations of our models. Even when it comes to the limits, in general, we know what they are. So neither "no one knows" or "fact" are useful descriptions of scientific knowledge.

There are, however, a lot of observations that are consistent with black holes. Which is how science works, not by proof or declaring things to be "fact". And don't forget the role of energy. And pressure. And momentum flow. And ... Gravitational pull can be described in terms of a force or an acceleration. Would you like to explain what a "pull more than the speed of light" is ? Actually, we have very good, well-tested theories of gravity which tell us what will happen. So saying that "no one has any ideas" is rather inaccurate. There is no reason to believe there is any such limit or that there will be an explosion. Note that scientific theories make quantitative predictions, rather than the sort of vague assertions here. Also, scientists know the limits of their models and would never declare anything as "fact".

For a solar mass black hole, the radius is about 3km. The radius is directly proportional to mass, so you can get an idea from that.

Feel free to produce a detailed mathematical model that predicts results consistent with the observations. Just let us know which peer-reviewed journal it is published in. He also claims that Pi = 4. So I think we can safely dismiss him as a complete crank.

That is not a reliable source. (Which might account for some of your confusion.)

Why would that be? All it does is confirm another prediction of GR. As far as I know, GR does not include antigravity, in which case the answer has to be no.

They don't conflict (whatever that means).

Reminds me of this: http://xkcd.com/793/

Can you explain what is new about this?

There is a model. The model produces precise quantitative predictions. Data are found that are consistent, to a high level of accuracy, with those predictions. If that is your definition of "speculative", I think you need a new dictionary. You are so determined to prop up your crank "theory," you refuse to acknowledge reality when it spits in your face.

No. Modern physics doesn't consider gravity to be a force. If it were a force, there would be no reason to think there were gravitational waves (as far as I know; I'm not aware of Newton proposing them). That is probably slightly closer to the modern view than the outdated idea of a force. Perhaps you could provide the evidence he is so sadly lacking, then?

This might answer some of your questions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon Note that there is no evidence for tachyons, and good theoretical reasons to assume they don't exist.

OK. I'll admit I didn't look at it in much detail. I couldn't see anything worth spending any time on ...

I still don't see what is new. Why do you think eval() exists? So you can do this.

But your list was incomplete. You didn't include, for example: Number of sides on a tetrahedron and octahedron Non-prime numbers Bell numbers Even numbers Odd numbers Catalan numbers Happy numbers Deficient numbers Ullam numbers And every other sequence in the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences By the time you have included the infinite number of possible sequences, I think you might find a more even distribution. Which just goes to show that "numerology is crap."

If the universe is infinite in size, then it must have always been infinite in size. I assume "smaller than an atom" (if it is real) would refer to the size of what is now the observable universe?

I think derek w meant, "the minimum number in the entire universe"; in which case, yes, the total number of galaxies is almost certainly many orders of magnitudes larger, if not infinite. We don't (and possibly can't) know how big the whole universe is, or even whether or not it is finite.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html When you can demonstrate that every single one of those is wrong, then we can talk.

The underlying mechanism is accurately described (predicted, even) by General Relativity.

He just asserts this. He has no evidence for the existence of this UDP and no theoretical justification. He made it up.

Yes. That is why square wheels have turned out to be so popular.

It only takes a few seconds to determine that it deserves no respect.

We already have a very good theory for that. It is capable of making precise, quantitative predictions and has been confirmed to a high level of accuracy. So: 1. What do you think is wrong with that theory? Are you aware of any evidence contradicting it, for example? 2. Why do you think your vague waffle is better? Are you able to make better, more accurate predictions, for example?