The rift between Jam and me is apparently in our definitions of destruction. For all purposes of physics and practicality, matter is destroyed in an annihilation reaction; I have no idea why thinking otherwise would be useful. There is matter, then there isn't matter. I like to call that destruction.
Jam, however thinks otherwise, and basically says an iron rod and a bunch of energy are the same things. I realize that certain areas of physics need to talk about matter and energy interchangeably, but I don't think that annihilating matter is the same as burning a log.
Newton had no concept of what Einstein came up with, so it's not like there was a debate and they chose opposite sides. It's like saying Aristotle disagreed with Copernicus.
Also, Jam, you see colors from emissions by objects. A white hole, by definition, emits everything, white light included. It wouldn't have to absorb any energy from outside sources to emit light. Regardless, there's no evidence of them, and I don't believe they exist either.
Suicidal, on that Law "exception" you're quite off. Matter is still conserved.
--Guido
http://andy.mikee385.com