No, the argument you're getting is roughly one of "Your bizarre claims are either backed by no evidence or are contrary to existing evidence, and had you taken the time to read more about it, you'd see just how silly your claims are."

With the exception of aphorisms, the definitive answer is no. Humans do not, nor have they ever, had tails.

One of our distant ape ancestors did though.

Both of you:




http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/starstruct.html

This is how we know.

Not to mention BLACK HOLES FORM WHEN A STAR DIES. Simply the physics of either don't allow for a star to form around a Black Hole.

As for tiny singularities (as was already stated, they are NOT Black Holes), if one WERE to form inside a star we would know about it by the constant loss of size and luminosity of said star.

Again I say just because YOU don't know doesn't mean NO ONE knows.

Oh for f#ck's sake; no, there isn't.

At the center of a star is a massive core of hydrogen fusion. The fact that you made such a claim shows that you have no idea how stars work.

The planet is round.

There, now I'll not put anymore effort into this.

Relative to whom? If I'm not mistaken, time is distorted rather heavily by the intense gravity in a Black Hole. In such a state of acceleration, it would take weeks for a person to be shredded into his/her respective components (atoms/subatomic particles).

Vastly different sciences using vastly different techniques cannot be compared for relative knowledge. Seismic imaging and data have given us a VERY accurate description of the Earth's interior. One way or another, it is certainly NOT hollow.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC411539/

This should give you more information.

Try to picture a flat latex membrane, with a heavy sphere sitting in it. You'd notice how the membrane stretched evenly down to the sphere. Now imagine that in three dimensions instead of two,



That's the Magnetic North Pole, rather than the true North Pole. It's 11 or so degrees off from the true North Pole. It's not a hole, but much like when you stick the end of a magnet over the middle of a compass, traveling over Magnetic North (or South) Pole will cause your compass to cease to function properly.

I back up these statements with a potentially-unreliable reference:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Will_a_compass_work_at_the_south_pole



It's not. There have been a number of flights over both the North and South poles.



The force of gravity is caused by Earth's mass and its consequent warping of spacetime. It doesn't emanate from a locatable source.

The idea of an "Inner Earth" is, quite frankly, ridiculous, as anything that deep in the Earth would quickly be killed by the heat. Hell, you can die of overheating in some diamond mines, let alone a subterranean world further below the surface than the bottom of the sea. Not to mention none of the seismic images of the Earth suggest anything but a solid (excluding the mantle and outer core, which are liquid) planet.

There is a striking difference, however, between tiny black holes, that spring in and out of existence everywhere, versus "regular" black holes which we're more familiar with (aka dead star collapses upon itself blah blah blah...).

To answer your earlier question, we don't know whether photons have mass or not. The assumption is that they have no mass because if they do have one, it's beyond our measurement at this point. The reason light gets "sucked in" to black holes is because the space around and in them is so severely warped. Even the gravitational fields around stars causes light to bend. As far as I understand relativity, gravity is the curvature of spacetime. Light travels in a straight line, relative to itself, but because the space in a gravitational field is warped, it causes the "straight" line to become curved. In the case of a black hole, once light crosses the event horizon, that straight line ends at the center of the black hole.

What I find most intriguing is that time is slowed to a crawl - possibly to a complete halt - in such a strong gravitational field. Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Time explains this phenomenon rather well.

More appropriately, what we see is most definitely NOT what is. Many of the pictures we have are of things no longer in existence. Most notably, anything outside of our galaxy is doubtless in a different location/stage of development than what we see. After all, we're talking anywhere from tens of thousands to several billion light years.

Another unit of measure, though seemingly less common in use, is the parsec.

Not really. I'm not sure of the programming of digital cameras, and what would be more memory-efficient, but let's look at it from this perspective:

Say the camera stores data by pixel, using however many colors it has in its memory. If this is the case, then each memory slot stores data individually. Every time you take a picture, different values are stored to different memory cells. Any time the same color is recorded in the same pixel, there's no reason the camera can't record the same number for that memory cell. If that's the case, the "numbers it has to generate" are drastically lowered. If the pictures are stored in list format by pixel, there only need to be as many numbers as colors*pixels. Conceivably, you can take an "infinite" number of pictures (memory allowing) with a finite amount of numbers.

Since (in this scenario) the numbers can be manipulated to produce any image, you can indeed produce, with the right combination of numbers, images of yourself having sex with Catherine Zeta Jones. lol.

You've already semi-covered this, but I figured I'd say it anyway.

It sounds a lot fishier than it is. The camera assigns number values to colors and pixels. For each picture the numbers are recorded for what color is in what pixel and stores it. The camera has only as many numbers as it has colors and pixels.

I'm sure it can't take pictures of anything outside the visible light spectrum, because why would it?

It's like the Dover trial, and Peter Pan Behe refuses to acknowledge the mountains of evidence we have regarding the formation of the bacterial flagellum!

Stop making me hungry, you two!

Please tell me that one was a joke. I counted 3 logical fallacies before simply closing the tab.

Anti-Creationist videos! I could show you hundreds of videos like this one. One of my favorite pastimes is watching the latest YEC nonsense refuted.

Exactly. The eyes "drift apart," which is how the image presents itself. If you cross your eyes the image is reversed. That is, it pops away from you instead of out at you.

Because it's a marvelously elegant theory, and is as of yet the closest we've come (mathematically, at least) to unifying Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity. Because the concept is so intriguing I would just very much like it to be correct.

I didn't know the correct word to use, but anyway, I think the eyes are supposed to be looking straight forward or close to it. If you focus on the image with one eye, the other seems to want to go to the correct position. Maybe because my eyes have two different prescriptions for correction it's easier to do than explain. lol.

Somehow this makes me think of Voltaire and his quote "behold, the nose is formed perfectly for spectacles."