Strange

Sounds like it. Especially when followed by the, frankly bizarre, "supposedly to prevent tooth decay."

Ferdinand de Saussure said this (and said it much more clearly) over 100 years ago. Nonsense. When you hear or read the sound, your mind associates it with the concept. And you have? Apart from the staggering arrogance of this insult, it doesn't follow from your previous statements. Everyone can use their mind. It is not clear that having ability with language is anything to do with thought so your incoherent use of words is both ironic and irrelevant. You really should learn something about language and/or the way the mind works.

How can not doing something be a style of doing something? That makes no sense. Is not playing football a sport? Science isn't intelligent or correct. It is a methodology for gathering and testing knowledge. Why do we continue to do it? Because it works. It produces practical and useful results (like your computer and Internet connection).

There are no holes in the theory of relativity. (This does not mean it is 100% correct or complete, of course. But we haven't yet found out anywhere it is incorrect.)

It is not clear that there was ever a singularity as a "thing". But, either way, we don't know anything about how the earliest universe came about: whether it was created, collapsed from some earlier universe, or any of the other speculative ideas.

That model does not match what we observe. Another claim that appears to contradict (well-tested) theory and the evidence. Do you have anything other than assertions? Maybe this should be moved to philosophy.

There's an awful lot of claims there with no support.

Nothing was "emitted" from a singularity. It seems unlikely that the singularity was a "thing". But the second sentence is more accurate; the universe is still expanding from some small hot dense state (which would be true even if the singularity is an accurate physical description). So everywhere in the universe was once much closer together. No it wasn't. And yes it is.

Yes, cells are made of atoms. The atoms are in all the molecules that make up the chemistry of the cell: water, fats, proteins, carbohydrates, enzymes, DNA, etc. All are chemical compounds made of atoms. The structures of the cell (membranes, protoplasm, nucleus, organelles, etc.) are all made of these chemicicals and so are made of atoms. The cell is alve because of the biochemical processes going on between these molecules and atoms. As to how life began, this is not known with any certainty yet. But there are some very good hypotheses, based on various lines of eveidence. It isn't an area I know a lot about so maybe someone else can provide more info.

You can consider that the photon went in a straight line (or a series of straight lines, in the case of diffraction) from the source to where you detect it. But ... for QED to calculate the probability of that path, it has to take into account everything the photon could have encountered (i.e. non-local effects). Also, if you try and test whether the photon really did take the path you assume, then you change the outcome of the experiment (by forcing it to be localized).

Probably more accurate to say the photon has non-locality. (But yes.)

The electrode potential of zinc and iron are different (perhaps you have heard of galvanised iron?). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrode_potential

Citation needed.

I don't know where that image came from, what it is supposed to show or how it is relevant. What is the answer to my question?

Yes Would you agree that if you looked at that airplane/insect from two different places then you would be able to work out how far away it really was (and therefore which it was)?

QED. (Sorry, I thought that had been referenced here before.)

That is how diffraction is modelled. QM uses a completely different model. Which, nicely, comes up with the same answers.

And that is yet another problem with the "the photon goes through both slits" interpretation. Like most interpretations/analogies it doesn't make too much sense when you examine it too closely.

Well, it is certainly unevidenced (in this thread) so it might as well be. I'm not sure that there was any topic, other than him introducing himself. (As someone I would not give a job to.)

No, but like many things it uses a different route to get the same result. (Rather like GR doesn't treat gravity as a force but Newton does.) Either way, there is no need for a medium.

Note that the mathematics associated with Huygens' principle does not include any parameters relating to the medium. So even if he conceived of it happening in a medium, he did not need to take that medium into account. It is almost as if the medium isn't there.

There is a difference between a "medium" that photons may or may not interact with and a medium that is required for the transmission of EM waves (i.e. the classical aether). There is absolutely no evidence, and no theoretical need, for the latter.

No, just a series of fairy tales.

My understanding is that this is normally true. But do the photons produced by a laser have coherent phase?

Crick & Watson (and the rest of the team)?