JacobsLadder

I'm pretty sure that Hawking radiation suggests that if a black hole is small enough it would evaporate extremely quickly and violently. In my book that would be an explosion. So, my answer is yes a black hole COULD explode.

I see there isn't much response here so I hope you don't mind if I quote a couple of entries from Wikipedia: At the 235th national meeting of the American Chemical Society in 2008, the idea of a second island of stability was presented by Yuri Oganessian. This new island would be centered on element 164, especially the isotope 482Uhq, with a stability similar to that of flerovium.[33] It is thought that to be able to synthesize these elements, a new, stronger particle accelerator would be needed. The most stable known flerovium isotope, flerovium-289, has a half-life of around 2.6 seconds, but it is possible that the unconfirmed flerovium-290 with one extra neutron may have a longer half-life of 19 seconds; this would be one of the longest half-lives of any isotope of any element at these farthest reaches of the periodic table. Flerovium is predicted to be near the centre of the theorized island of stability, and it is expected that heavier flerovium isotopes, especially the possibly doubly magic flerovium-298, may have even longer half-lives. Perhaps particle accelerators are not the way forward. One can't help but wonder if there is a technology around the corner whereby the opposite approach may be used. Perhaps a device to gingerly coax the atomic particles together, thus allowing an atom to be fabricated to an exact requirement. I suspect our descendants might be amused at our brutal approach.

Women also survive childbirth whether by caesarean section or other medical intervention. Also, Individuals survive to breeding age with traits which are extremely rare in our closest primate relatives, eg debilitating eyesight.

I have acknowledged Newtonian physics as fundamental. If you care to read, I am quite sure that I have already addressed your points.

Nope. The numbers show we would expect to see a difference. Since we don't see a difference this proves I am correct.

So because the numbers support my argument it means that numbers are no longer significant. I see.

This is explosive evidence. The fact that there is no difference between hitting the ball East vs West proves beyond reasonable doubt that there is no rotation. Let us not forget that in this world of GPS tracking a difference of 6-7 inches would be clearly evident in golfing statistics. It seems I do have the numbers to back up my argument after all. The atomic clock running at different rates is very likely entirely due to altitude alone. Again, you are introducing unnecessary factors and not observing Occam's Razor.

I suspect Newton would have agreed with me.

As luck would have it someone already did. It is called Newtonian Physics.

Okay please be fair. I was presented with two links on the first reply. I read both and responded. I was then presented with this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance which states that the laws of motion are the same in all inertial frames. Nothing to do with my argument. and then a list with no links: Sunrise and sunset? Coriolis force? Foucault's pendulum? The motion of the stars? The fact the Earth is an oblate spheroid? The Hafele-Keating experiment? Firstly, "The fact the Earth is an oblate spheroid" is not a fact I accept. The Hafele-Keating experiment was a test of relativity - nothing to do with my argument. Everything else on the list is in agreement with a non-rotational model.

If you assert with no evidence then I will dismiss with no evidence.

There is nothing more to be said. We agree on that point. I pointed out first there is no lateral force. My explanation is simple. It is your explanation that involves unnecessary complication. Occam's razor says I am right.

Perhaps you might want to consider the example of the parachutist? How would no parachutist have noticed that they land 100s of miles off target depending on which way the aircraft is travelling?

You are missing that there is no lateral force on the helicopter whatsoever. You are the one introducing unnecessary forces when Occam's razor suggests otherwise. How convenient. 1,675 kmh rotation and I can play golf on a perfect day with no breeze.

I have addressed those points already. Explain the helicopter/satellite anomaly and then we can talk. Because apparently the earth rotating at 1,675 kmh. It is not a linear force so you be be subject to centrifugal force throwing you off the earth. My golf balls don't go further when I hit them east or west. That is evidence the earth is not rotating.

I can't say I am convinced. I tend towards Occam's razor in this case. I have yet to see a convincing argument that the earth is in motion although I appreciate your feedback.

That doesn't explain the inertia.

The problem with that is that it is a rotational movement. It is not linear, therefore we would expect to see anything in earth's atmosphere being ejected into space by the wind.

Yes, so it should be the same in both directions. If there is rotation at 1,675 kmh then the wind would be way beyond hurricane force.

So why doesn't my golf shot go into space? If it has inertia in one direction surely it should keep travelling out of the atmosphere.

That is my point. The balls go up and down. That suggests the earth is stationary.

From the first article: In order to put the satellite into a specific orbit, they can't just shoot it straight up from the Earth's surface. They have to apply horizontal forces as well, in order to counter the Earth's rotation and get the satellite into the correct orbit. So why is different for helicopters? It seems helicopters can go straight up and down but not satellites . Why do these forces not apply to helicopters?

I'm not being obtuse. I'm merely pointing out inconsistencies in the accepted laws of motion. I will read the articles thanks.

From your source: as soon as the helicopter left the ground, the ground would ZOOM away at up to 1,675 kmh This is what is wrong. The helicopter is clearly leaving earth's frame of reference and yet this doesn't happen.That suggests to me that the Earth is not moving.

As a keen golfer I often wonder why my easterly drives have no noticeable difference in distance to my westerly drives despite a calm day. Surely the rotation of the earth should affect the distance to a small degree? With the same principle in mind, one also must wonder why a helicopter can hover in place despite being located above a spinning planet? I'm not entirely sure how Newton explained this anomaly.