DietAnthrax

Yes, I'd like one of them. I'll have mine medium-rare please.

Not having ever programmed something so stupid, I wouldn't know. If you look closely at my original post, you might be able to work out that it was a joke.

The 18 years of atmospheric nuclear testing (45 -63) weren't exactly catastrophic. Sure, a clean fusion bomb is the holy grail of Orion drives, but I don't think the idea should be considered heretical even if this can't be obtained. Explosive-powered cannons have no practical use for putting things into orbit - the g-forces are just too high. There are numerous problems with ideas such as rail-guns and gauss-guns, but perhaps these can be overcome. Certainly, some kind of lunar-based EM accelerator would be a good idea, with the very thin atmosphere and shallow gravity well. I just can't see this being true on Earth, though.

Test

A. It can be whatever you want it to be. B. Non-standard libraries. Take your pick.

Basically, there are only two choices: 1. Chemical rockets. Very inefficent at delivering payloads into orbit, but I suspect there's room for more refinements. Aircraft releasing the rocket seems like a very sensible refinement to me, for example. 2. Orion style drives. Slight increase in the background radiation versus the ability to efficiently hoist thousands of tons of payload into space - it all depends how badly you want it.

1 = 0 in the limit as 1 tends to zero. One zero is zero. int 1 = 0; printf("%d", 1); If you look closely, you might be able to see a 0 in 0ne. etc.

You haven't "corrected" anything. You've just waffled and talked a lot of nonsense, and made loads of mistakes, intersperced with stunning revelations e.g. about kinetic energy being proportional to velocity squared. Wow. "Potential kenetic" energy? Haha. "but really this is because the ground underneath of the car is also traveling the opposite direction under the car as you are driving on top of the road doubling your velocity". No. This is totally and laughably wrong. At this point I got bored and stopped reading.

Interesting article, but highly speculative. Given that dark matter supposedly makes up 99% of the universe, and assuming that it can form massive black holes with very little normal matter present, I'm surprised that many of these dark-matter black holes haven't been found yet by gravitational lensing effects.

I'd wager that your theory contains no experimental predictions whatsoever. If it doesn't, then maybe you shouldn't bother posting it - SR and GR are totally logically self consistent. They don't need to be "re-explained".

But if you'd gone for "yes" you would have been agreeing with him that you weren't going to respond in the first place. This would have been more elegant.

Perhaps, but what kind of reproduction? Forest fire reproduce. Sparks are lifted up by convection, and can land and start new fires quite far from the "parent" fire. Fire isn't alive, though - no information about the parent fire is contained within the new fires. Inheritance is a strong component in any good definition of life. Even if black holes really spawn new universes, can any pseudo-genetic information about our universe by given to the "new" one? With regards to possible thought processes in the universe, the finite speed of light and the universe's accelerating expansion should be borne in mind. If there is a consciousness, it will be getting stupider and stupider all the time. Not that I think there is even a remote possibility of such a mind actually existing. BTW, I didn't suggest that thought processes should be included in a definition of the term "life".

Unidentified UFOs? By definition all UFOs are unidentified. (And, incidentally, none of them are aliens).

It can't reproduce, there's no known mechanism for thought processes to occur, it cannot adjust to changing conditions (because it itself is all there is). Therefore it can't fall under any half-decent definition of life.