Strange

What does? Ignoring people who have answered your questions? An occasional "that's interesting" or "thank you" or something would be appreciated by many, I suspect.

Not that tired old Shibboleth again... http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/myl/languagelog/archives/003775.html

Antimatter is very well understood and used in a number of technologies. So I would say you are definitely not correct. Why the Higgs boson? Why not other bosons? Or other fermions? I assume the Higgs boson is its own antiparticle (like photons are). Of course. Such as?

Even if we say infinity is real (in the same sense that 5 is real) then it still doesn't mean that there are infinite possibilities.After all, 5 and 42 are equally real, that doesn't mean that 5 or 42 things could happen when you die. Only things which are physically possible are possibilities. You are not going to turn into a unicorn or an army of animated jelly babies when you die. As far as we can tell, the only possibility is that your body is disposed of and that's the end of you.

My questions were not criticisms, but attempts to get the OP to think in a bit more detail about the questions so that they could be the subject of more constructive discussion. Which is why I really liked the idea of looking at the brain as some sort of comparison. I thought the original idea was fairly hopeless, but it ends up being quite interesting.

It says that the mass is probably between 10 and 18 times that of the sun, so the radius is between 30 and 54km. (I'll let you work out the speed!) Note that in a rotating black hole, the singularity is a ring, not a point. I think that, like Hawking's similar description of Hawking radiation, it is an analogy to the mathematical description of what is happening. And possibly not a very accurate one.

What are N and p, and what is the relationship between them? Is N a number and p one of it's prime factors? In your example, you know both N and p, so what are you trying to find? Having multiples names (x and p, for example) for the same thing is very confusing.

The rate of expansion is that required to get from zero size(1) to its current size in 13.8 billion years. So to get to twice that size would take another 13.8 billion years(2). (1) Ignoring the fact it was probably never zero size (2) Ignoring the possible acceleration that has been observed.

It is slowed by about 0.03%.

I was thinking of "sight" as the sense (not the eye) and, as you rightly say, sight is almost entirely done in the brain not the eye. (As is true for the other senses.) But I'm guessing that in other animals, that could be the other way round. For example, do bats devote more of their brain to hearing than sight? And dogs, more to smell?

The thing is, there are an infinite number of integers (1, 2, 3, ...). And there are infinite numbers between 1 and 2. And also between 2 and 3 and 3 and 4 ... A mathematician called Georg Cantor developed a very clever proof that you cannot map the infinity of numbers between 1 and 2 (the "reals") onto the infinity of integers. In other words, there are infinitely more reals than there are integers. So the answer to what is beyond infinity is ... another infinity. In fact, you can define an infinite number of different infinities.

Amount of brain allocated to each sense is a pretty good way of comparing them.

How are you going to define the resolution of each sensor? And how are you going to compare the different units? This is a bit like asking: which is more efficient, a ruler or a sandwich?

Not directly. Relative motion causes a decrease in length and slowing in time. You can think of this as a rotation where some of that length gets converted to time.

Multiply its size by how much?

Probably not: https://www.autismspeaks.org/blog/2014/05/22/there-connection-between-autism-and-bipolar-disorder

Source?

Quantum theory deals with fields that are, well, quantized. Roughly, the quantized perturbations of the fields are "particles". Here is an overview: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/06/20/how-quantum-field-theory-becomes-effective/ And a more detailed work-through the maths: http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/ball-on-a-spring-classical/ I don't think so, no.

Can you explain what you are doing here? I can't follow it at all. You seem to be taking a number (PNP=605054707) and one of its divisors (x=14251) and then taking a long winded route to get an approximation to PNP/x. What is the point?

How do you define "acute"? How would you compare the "acuteness" of small with that of sight, for example? What about the other senses?

Are we back to page 1 now? Do we have to go through the whole argument again, or is there a shortcut?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82164-the-quote-function-a-tutorial-in-several-parts/

Please show the sources for the data you use. I'm not to waste my time doing that research.

No you haven't. On my planet, contrails can last for hours and "chemtrails" are a fairy story invented by deluded idiots. Unless, of course, you can produce some scientific evidence to the contrary. yes. It was particularly obvious when there was a big volcano in Iceland and so there were no planes for several days. It was weird to see such clear skies. None of which has anything to do with your fairy tales. No, I really haven't. Read more carefully. Why not? Maybe you should learn to use your brain. Please provide some scientific data to support this claim.

What do you mean? If you mean the fact that the speed of light is invariant, the the implication is the theory of special relativity.