N_las

You will get a heavier black hole. EDIT: There is no difference between a black hole that formed from matter or one that formed from antimatter. Even if one would imagine that the antimatter could annihilate with the matter behind the event horizont, the resulting radiation would still be traped in the black hole and would still have the same energy. So the mass of the black hole wouldn't disappear.

You can't stop the metabolism of plants and still expect them to life. If plants stop "producing" oxygen, that means they stoped growing. They will die and all animals and humans will starve.

If the angle of the gyro-axis is changed, that means that the angular momentum of the gyros was changed (not its amount, but its direction). If there is a change in angular momentum (amount or direction, doesn't matter), that means there has to be a corresponding torque. If the gyros are off, they have no angular momentum and so a change in the gyro-axis doesn't mean a change in angular momentom (at least not in the same way as before). So there is no corresponding torque (or at least a very different tourqe). An oscillating torque on the machine can produce a swing motion, as long as the machine is connected through wires with the ceiling. So a different tourqe-situation may case very different swing behaviours. Thats just one idea. There could be hundreds of reasons why the machine swings differently with gyros-on.

From the document: "A fitting test is to (...) compare the deflection between the on and off conditions of the device. A sustained net deflection of the pendulum is indicative of genuine thrust. Alternatively, if the pendulum oscillates around its null position, which is the expected finding, then the device is not creating net thrust. " You interpret that as: "According to NASA (...) any reactionless drive invention suspended from a pendulum should behave exactly the same on and off." Your interpretation is flawed. The document doesn't say that the behaviour in both (on and off) cases should be identical. It says that you have to compare the deflection of the machine (in on-mode) with the neutral position (wich can be measured by having the machine in off-mode). You simply can't say that because your machine behavies differently with gyros-on or gyros-off, that would be evidence that "something" about your machine is working, or your machine would somehow deliver unexplainable results. It could very well be possible for it to swing better with gyros-on. An NASA didn't claim what you said it would.

What do you mean with "on" and "off". Gyros on and off? Are you sure you understand Nasa correctely? If I put a Kid on a swing, and the Kid is "on" (doing the right movement with its body) it behaves very differently than an "off" Kid (simply sitting there with no movement).

Sorry, I didn't indent for this to be an argument. Quantum entanglement is interesting and quantum teleportation may be very useful for future communication applications. But it won't allow for faster than light communication.

The quantum teleportation from your first and second source can't be used to transmit information faster than the speed of light. To establish a successful teleportation, classical communication is necessary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation Your third source even says: "Whereas the result may sound like a way to send faster-than-light messages, it isn't, really, because you can't know the state of the entangled photon pair before it's measured" There is no evidence in any of your sorces that suggest a faster-than-light data link. EDIT: To read the quantum state from the system, after a successful quantum teleportation, you have to break the entanglement.

If that would be the problem, you could prepare an ensemble of quadrillions of entangled particle pairs. But you have to order a new package of "fresh" entangled particles every other day from Amazon.

Can you please link to the paper that describes a communication faster than the speed of light. Entangled Particles shouldn't be able to transmit information. Edit: And whats up with "people say... ". It is hard to discuss a scientific topic if all we have is the distorted view of someone based on hearsay. Where did you read that "entangled particles show a connection even after breaking the entanglement". Where did you read about the camera?

So rebuilding the roads with standart methods and simultaniously building solar panels somewere else on a fixed angle will be a better solution. The logic: "Roads should generate income -> we build solar panels inside the roads!" sounds as dumb to me as "Roads should generate income -> we build pizza ovens inside of them" Building pizza ovens (or solar panels) somewere else will generate MORE income than in the roads. Income is income, just because it isn't generated in the roads doesn't mean it can't be used to mantain the roads. But keeping the road at over 0°C while snow falls on top of it? During the whole winter? If the energy generated by the solar energy would be sufficient for that, than the roads would be snow free automatically, because the sun would already melt the snow. So more energy is needed for keeping the roads ice free, than the sun can provide. The same thing can be achieved with just a few LED signs. Making the whole road a giant LED sign doesn't make sense. My alarm clock has a LED display. But why should I put LEDs all over my Room for the same purpose?

- Couldn't you "microgenerate" the electricity better, if you put the solar cells not under the road? - Wouldn't solar cells produce a better income if they are directly in the sun? - They want to heat the roads? In the winter, if there is around -10°C outside, you want to keep the roads heated to a bit over 0°C? That is insane. - What is the advantage of integrated light signals? It sounds like integrated signaling on my bedsheet: What does it provide?

I see no reason to put solar cells into the road. What is the advantage of that? Are the solar cells more efficent because they are in the road rather than on a roof? Do the roads work better if solar cells are in them?

It is flawed not because of little insignificant things like that. It is flawed because it is not possible to validate if someone really did flip a coin. I picked the answer that was in front - just to increase the difference from 50/50.

Yes, the church laughted at Galileo on the internet. That showed him.

You missed the point: One should consider everything true unless it is proven false. So if you can't disprove a shifting earth than it is de facto proven that it did shift. Thats what i learnd from this thread so far. I sure hope they don't adapt that logic for court cases. Gulty until proven innocent isn't my favorite.

Hahahah pi - phi^2 = length of "Königselle" in metre. The only conclusion is that ancient people knew about the metric system... Sorry. But if you take such "documentarys" seriously then there is no rational discussion possible with you. What are the criteria for the line? Why are some site like stonehenge not included? If I plot random dots on a map everybody can draw a line that connects some of them. EDIT: And all the pyramids by the mayas and atztecs in middle america aren't even on that line.

Show me the line on a globe that connects the pyramids in egypt, the pyramids in middle america, machu picchu, stonehenge ...

Being able to reach orbit with a single stage or not has nothing to do with being disposable or not. You can have disposable sstos or reusable mulit-stage rockets just fine.

Funny, isn't it? YOU claimed they were all along a past equator line. So one would think you have written records or magical measurments? This has to be sarcasm... This idea is seriously more plausible to you than a pharaos making graves for themselfes?

A civilisation as advanced as us would find our remains: - The remains of apollo and various other robotic landings on the moon would stay there very long. - The 'lack of fossil fuel' will stay long. The very sudden increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will be measureable in ice layers in the future. - They will have a fossil record. A sudden mass extinction event will be noticed. - Noble metals will be found in unnatural forms. If a fossilised t-rex skelleton can pass the test of time, a gold reserve will too.

And could you count how many times you ended up wrong?

So ancient romans would have no idea why sailboats work, because they didn't know what causes the wind? The answers aren't childish. You asked how sailboats work, we described what sails are, and how wind causes a pressure difference between both sides of the sail. We made clear how a pressure difference on a huge area equates to a force acting on the sail, and how this force is acting on the ship. Pointing to the fact that we don't know what causes the wind doesn't strip us of our knowledge of sailboats. We know what gravity is, how it works. We know how to generate gravity (by great masses, rotation, usw.). The reason why energy has the feature to bend space-time is not important for that. So please, explain why you go to work each monday? I doesn't matter what the answer is, I can always ask: "And why....", "And why...", "And why...", to infinity. If i get to the point were you can't answer anymore, I can proudly claim: "Ha, you don't even know why you go to work each monday, your struggles to explain that are childish and common sense tells me there is something soooo wrong with you. Only quacksalvers claim they know why they go to work." You don't have to wonder why you would be "hammerd down" if you say things like "nobody understands what gravity is". But I don't really see were this "hammering" took place... we simply answered your questions, and you were not satisfied with the answers.

Masses (or energy in general) bend space-time. Objects with no force acting on them will travel straight paths through space-time. Because of the curvature of space-time (caused by the masses) those straight lines look like curved paths that look like masses are attracting each other. In this picture, gravity isn't a force like electro-magnetism but a result of the properties of space-time. (To make this clearer: An orbit around the earth is actually a straight line in space-time. From our point of few it looks like a circle because of the curvature of space-time caused by the earth.) I really don't understand why so many people are saying gravity is a huge mystery. You can now ask, why objects travel straight paths through space-time. Or why masses bend space-time. But that are different questions. And this "why, why, why" game can be played with anything: It is a huge mystery why you drive to work every monday. Because you need the money? Why do you need the money? Because you need to buy food? Why? Because you don't want to starve? Why? (If you ever had a 5-year-old around you, you know what I mean.) And inertia: Objects travel straight paths through space-time. To change that path one need to exert a force. The force needed is proportional to the mass (or energy in general) of the object.

Passing the event horizont will not somehow get you to move faster than light.