A few questions about astronomy/astrophysics.

 Neither term is relevant to light.

 Don't dig any deeper. You won't get out. The "extra" mass for real particles only, comes from the relavistic 4-vector expression for the total eneergy of a particle.

 Check out the Bernoulli family.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli 

 That doesn't make sense.  Individual photons carry relatively little energy, which depends on their frequency (e.g. a red photon of wavelength 700 nm carries an energy of 2.84*10^-19 Joules.  The amount of chemical potential energy stored in the food I eat contains far more energy than that.

If you want to know why objects with a non-zero rest mass can't reach the speed of light, simply study relativity instead of trying to make up your own pseudo-scientific reasons (I'm not trying to be mean here, please don't take it that way).

 "This is wrong. A "noise" or sound is a sinusoidal longitudinal vibration in a medium"

Sound is very rarely sinusoidal.

" Don't dig any deeper. You won't get out. The "extra" mass for real particles only, comes from the relavistic 4-vector expression for the total eneergy of a particle."

The extra mass comes about because it makes the equation for momentum more convenient.  In classical mechanics momentum is given by p = m*v where m is the mass and v is the velocity of a particle.  In relativity, a particle's momentum goes to infinity as it approaches the speed of light.  The momentum equation is modified to replace m (which is the rest mass of the particle) with M (the relativistic mass of the particle).

The total energy of a particle isn't a vector quantity, either.  The energy appears in the momentum 4-vector. 

 5 is sufficient.

 Prove it.

 Tut tut. As any physicist should know you cannot prove anything about the physical universe. Proof is for mathematicians and lawyers, better approximations are all that physicists can hope for.

 I cannot prove how many dimensions the universe has but no string theorist has yet produced any evidence whatsoever to suggest that string theory is anything more than just fancy mathematics. I happen to think that Klein-Kaluza theory is an adequate starting point for determining how the universe works so 5 is sufficient for me.

 Well, actually, I can prove that I exist in three or four dimensions, not 5. My thesis proved a neutron shell boundary at N=60.

I'm no physicist but I am pretty sure that mini black holes have not been created in the particle accelerators, and even if they were I doubt that they would disintegrate.  I think that it was Stephen Hawkings who first proposed mini black holes, but I think they are only theoretical at this point. 

 The multi-dimensions of the universe is somehow based on the mathematics of matrices, at least that is how it was explained to me.  You cannot visualize x dimensions, but you can visualize a matrix with x number of variables.

I have never heard of sunlight or photons exerting pressure.  Are you sure that you are not confusing sunlight with the solar wind?  The solar wind is not composed of photons, but of charged particles.  It moves quite fast, but slower than the speed of light, though it does exert a pressure on earth's magnetosphere.

 Tachyons are particles which have been proposed to move faster than the speed of light.  I don't think that they have much theoretical basis, and I am virtually positive that they have not been experimentally proven.  If they do exist, it is believed that it would be impossible for them to travel slower than the speed of light. 

Light moves at the "speed of light" only in a vacuum.  It slows down somewhat as it passes thru matter.  There are no particles that can move faster than light or slower than light depending on the circumstances (unless there has been a recent breakthru in our understanding of particle physics which I am unaware of).

Last but not least, there have been many scientist who have spoken of God but were metaphorically speaking, and did not mean "God" in the sense that most of us do (ie. a benevolent supreme being who is interested in the affairs of men--no pun intended).  Einstein was one example, but there are many others.

All of these concepts are confusing and bending my brain, I need a nice relaxing game of chess.

 The mass becomes infinite at the speed of light--that's the barrier.

 Go on then. You might like to start by proving that three, four or any number you care to mention of dimensions actually exist. A mathematical proof will not suffice. I can prove many things exist mathematically but that does not require that they have physical existence. Then you can move on to proving that you exist. That should keep you occupied for a considerable length of time.

 Your thesis actually proves nothing of the sort, all it can do is produce a description of some aspect of the universe (in this case a neutron shell boundary at N=60). As with all physical laws it is falsifiable but never provable. You may amass evidence to support your thesis but it is always a possibility, however remote, that a counterexample will be found and a new, more accurate, description will be needed.

Wow, and I thought Karl Popper was dead!!!!

Red

 I think he is dead. I aint him but I do know about the nature of science, in particular physics. I ought to, I have been doing it for long enough.

 That's easy, Honey, I can move back and forth, up and down, and right and left.

Can't you? 

 Can't YOU also prove it on this website w/ a picture of you playinf checkes? Or are you just another picture of a pretty girl jealous of another who may be smarter?

RedSerpent said Your thesis actually proves nothing of the sort, all it can do is produce a description of some aspect of the universe (in this case a neutron shell boundary at N=60). As with all physical laws it is falsifiable but never provable. You may amass evidence to support your thesis but it is always a possibility, however remote, that a counterexample will be found and a new, more accurate, description will be needed.

1. How can he know my thesis proves anything or nothing when only my Universities have read it? 2. He seems to imply that he is waiting for Newton's Apple to fall "up" also, to justify his childishly outrageous claims.  Was he born with half a brain or did it just wither away?

By my basic mathematical skills, that only makes 3 dimensions.

 Worse still, saying she can do it is not evidence that she can actually do it and is certainly not proof!