Strange

This relation applies to any wave and you need to use the appropriate velocity for the wave you are considering. For example, if you were concerned with sound waves, you would use the speed of sound. If you are talking about light, you use the speed of light, c. Actually, the speed of light through a medium is wavelength dependent.There will be some dispersion of blue and red light in a fibre.

If that were the case, then wouldn't you expect to see a single, very small source? Although, in a sense it is true, because the radiation does appear to come from where the singularity was (i.e. everywhere). (Although, the singularity, probably, was not a physical "thing".)

Not.

I didn't say intelligence is based around your computer. I don't even know what that means. I just pointed out that science produced your computer and it doesn't matter if you believe in it or not. You may not be thankful for it, but you seem happy enough to use it (feel free to stop any time).

You can't think of photons like little bullets.

I don’t why you have gone off on this diversion, but … That is just silly. Atheism isn’t a belief in “ultimate truth”. It is just an absence of belief in god(s). No asserts science is ultimate truth. Especially not scientists. We know the scientific method is effective because it works. The computer you are using and the Internet were developed using science (not philosophy, barks, or religion). No one cares. Your computer will continue to work whether you believe in it or not. That is the great thing about science; it doesn’t require belief.

We don't "design" the dictionary if by that you mean that dictionary writers invent language. They don't. They just document language as it is used. Language evolves naturally. We have little control over it. You can see this by studying history: attempts to stamp out or enforce particular languages do not work.

I won't argue with that. Perl is a handy thing for an experienced programmer to have in their toolkit. But I shouldn't recommend it to a learner (it has very sharp edges and is dangerously flammable )

Physics doesn't really do "why". Here is Feynman talking about just that issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjmtJpzoW0o

Whichever you are most comfortable with. (persoanlly, I find NetBeans slightly easier to use than Eclipse. Others disagree. This is an interesting example to learn programming with. I would suggest you pick a language (Perl, Java, C#, Python, whatever) then buy a book (or find an online resource) that teaches programming with that language and use your idea as a learning project. Then come back here with questions when you get stuck. I don't know if anyone here has the time to teach you programming via this forum (I don't).

The Michelson-Morley result was compatible with the idea of "aether dragging" (i.e. the aether being stationary around the Earth). But this model was contradicted by other experiemtns. Those experiemtns might be compatible with "stationary aether" but this is contradicted by the Michelson-Morley result. Similarly with "partial dragging" and all the other ad-hoc attempts to make it work. No aether theory (*) is compatible with all experiments. (*) Except LET, which is SR with extra undetectable aether that has no effect on anything. At which point Occam's Law applies and it becomes SR.

Excellent point. Not only is spoken language not man-made (unlike the Internet and computer that sleep seems quite happy with) but the whole "natural=good; unnatural=bad" meme is ridiculous.

It is a tricky concept. The important point is the the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation was everywhere; it was released when the universe became transparent as it cooled. This is called the "surface of last scattering". Over time we receive radiation from further and further away - simply based on the time it has taken for those photons to reach us. Here is a nice analogy called "the surface of last screaming" which might make it clearer: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March03/Lineweaver/Lineweaver7_2.html

You know you are a geek when you confuse Halloween with Christmas because Oct 31 == Dec 25.

Of course it isn't. No one one is saying it is.(Assuming I am correct in thinking these garbled words mean: "words are not the same as thought"). I fail to see how this trivially obvious fact is relevant to anything you claim. I have no idea what "thinking with the tongue" means. The trouble is, the semantic content of most of your sentences is worryingly close to nil. Ah, I see. The fact that people find your statements incomprehensible and illogical proves that you are right? You seem to have missed the point: he was quoting a lunatic who has been given life imprisonment for multiple murders. As they say: don't be that guy.

It is a pertty damning indictment of your thought processes to say you agree with Kaczynski. You are doing a splendid job of confusing and misleading people all by yourself.

Do they? Who thinks that? That is a very strange idea. Intelligence is a function of the mind - human and animal. Which rather implies it has nothing to do with words. This seems to be a strawman argument. Well, I don't know what you are on about. None of that made any sense. Maybe you have a problem with words.

To the mind what is meaningless? Or maybe you are just not able to express your thoughts very clearly. What does that mean? A bark isn't equal to the mind. And a bark isn't classed as intelligence. And you wonder why people don't understand you? Of course not. Have I mentioned Saussure? This is not exactly news. We can also make measurements, exchange ideas (you know, using those "word" things) and develop complex theories about how it works. What do you mean by "comprehend"? Because we seem to be doing a pretty good job of perceiving and understanding it. That might be because it is pretty much impossible to know what that is.

That is the nature of science. There is a mountain of evidence for the theory. None against it and a few unknowns. There is no alternative theory that fits all the evidence. So people go with the best we have (for the time being).

Here is a good summary of the main lines of evidence for the big bang model: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

I haven't seen any good reasons. You have made some confused and half-baked claims, which are unsupported by any evidence and contradict reality. For example, you claim that the power of our language, which has enabled our culture and technology, is somehow inferior to meaningless grunts.

What is? Expansion? No, it is based on several lines of consistent evidence. There are all sorts of things on the Internet. You might need to find a more reliable source. I'm not aware of any evidence that contradicts expansion. (Although there are, of course, some unanswered questions. This is science after all.)

Why not? Because your question suggests you think it could be an illusion. If so, what do you think causes the illusion? If you don't think it could be an illusion, why ask the question?

We can communicate better than (probably) any other species. Other animals can tell others where food is to be found (or lie about it). They can express emotions and sound warnings. But ot an awful lot more. We can tell stories, write poetry, pass on technical and scientific information. All through the use of words. The development of language is one of the key things that makes it possible for you to have the technology to have this conversation (using words). But feel free to go back to just barking at people. Let us know how that works out for you.

What do you propose causes this illusion?