Fucked off? I took his own assumption, proved him wrong as you can check for your self (in the post above the one you quoted and HE doesn't disagree with anything I said but of course it seems that you've missed that), and then he posted the above saying that the numbers HE took are optimistic, so he backed of, please explain to me how can you argue with someone, that tells you lets assume this and that, and when you prove  with his own calculus, assumptions and numbers that he is wrong and that his argument works in my favors and goes with everything I said before, then he just backs off!, saying "oh noes, but things don't go the way I presented before" . No offense to you but the stupid person here is the one not able to gasp this fact, if I go trough the trouble to prove him (and you by the same occasion) wrong again he'll just again back off and say " but what I said is not really accurate, we have to take this and that into consideration aswell.

And as they say in Africa : "Only a fool tests the water with both feet."

Good point, and we can go even beyond that, considering that according to theoretical physics, bit of information can be stored and produced at the plank lenght!, and this according to many theories such String, or Quantum Gravity......theories, these are indeed still far from our grasp (the math is there but we are still far far away from proving things trough experimentation and observations in these fields, but it was the same thing happened with General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics in the past century, we've moved from theories on paper, to stuff we can use and we use in our every day life.

Reference?

Its simple: We kill the batman.




But on a serious note, you cant i believe, they are unspendable.

for example : http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0304/0304032.pdf One of many of course
and http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:gr-qc/9403008v2

Also the whole principal of theories such as String, Super String, M-Theory is that matter is composed by strings that are on the plank size that are on 10-11 dimensions and this strings can represent a bit if not bits! of information (since these strings, like in the partical scale, they have different states that can be simulated by quantum mechanics principles.

In similar way Quantum gravity theory can give an identical result


It is pretty understandable that these theories are out of the reach of many, I myself don't understand a lot of the maths behind them when I try to go deap, but if you don't understand what I'm talking about it is better to remain silent or even better ask questions but from there to try to discredit people just because of your own ignorance, and because you disagree with them is counterproductive to say the least.
"'Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
Johnson, Dr Samuel

SatoshiCoin, the only coin leveraged on 2850 BTC.  BITCOIN THE NEXT GENERATION!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll give you credit for your open-mindedness and research,
and its interesting reading.

That being said, even without understanding all the math
in the papers you posted, its clear that this stuff is
100% postulation with no empirical evidence
given to back up even the starting assumptions.

I'm done "debating" here, but I think that when you take stuff like
this and make predictions about where computers might be in
a few decades, well, no wonder you're getting resistance.

dude just like
hack his Facebook!