Strange

Or better. They have frumps, snodles, ponks, kemps, doings, ... But they still have planets, stars, life and love. (Dunno if they have god or not). Point being, we may be in one of a (possibly) infinite number of universes that could support life that would ask the question: "why is it just like this?" (where "this" is almost infinitely variable.) I think my irony meter is faulty.

We did.

I'll go for incandescent light bulb. That is a pretty useless redefinition of Ohm's law. If there is no fixed relationship between V and I then it isn't much of a law. Of course there are devices where the current is not constant with a constant voltage so they don't obey even your "weak Ohm's law". (Are we getting off topic...)

Possible, but there is no reason to think so currently. It probably belongs in the Cosmological Argument thread as yet another example of things that are acausal.

It doesn't appear and disappear. It is a conserved quantity (like mass-energy) and the total charge never changes.

There have been some measurements that suggest that the speed of light may have changed. But this is a few parts per million over a period of many billions of years. Obviously, this can't be tested directly by measuring the speed of light. So it has to be done indirectly by measuring things such as the fine structure constant in the past (e.g. looking at distant galaxies). As far as I know, these measurements have not been successfully repeated or confirmed. The other, unrelated, idea is that it is possible to choose a different set of coordinates for describing the expanding universe. If you choose appropriate coordinates then the speed of light changes over time and the universe is infinitely old (and distances shrink .... or something; I don't claim to understand the details). But it is just a different version of the same model that (for most people) is less intuitive.

Does this mean you have chosen a couple of arbitrary numbers in order to get the right answer? Can you explain how you calculate the velocity of a galaxy from the wavelength? How does the "standard method" calculate the velocity of a galaxy from a wavelength?

Can you explain what your program is supposed to calculate ... i.e. describe the steps it goes through -- it is a bit hard to read code formatted like that (I assume it is some dialect of Basic?); and not the best way to present a calculation anyway. It looks like you are calculating the velocity of an electron (assume a classical model) and then using Doppler effect to calculate the frequency shift. And then relating the change in this velocity (and hence frequency shift) to the change in energy of energy level (or just kinetic energy?). Is that correct? I don't see the connection to stars. Unless they are orbiting galaxies at the same velocity - which seems unlikely.

I think the reason we are not too surprised by this is that we are familiar with it (qualitatively) from things like the way the intensity of light or heat, or strength of a magnet, falls of with distance. Then, learning about Newton's laws of gravity at a young age. It ends up feeling quite intuitive. For me, at least, it was more of a shock to find that other forces didn't follow the same law. The "rope" analogy for the strong force is limited (well, it is an analogy) in that if you break the rope, your dog runs free. If you provide enough energy to "break" the strong force, the energy is converted into more quarks ... all still bound by the strong force.

Can you explain what that means. What is an "Amp hole"? What make/model of multimeter are you using?

Have you actually calculated what the current should be through each resistor and in total? What is the voltage of the battery in your circuit?

The invisible unicorns came first. They created the universe and then went on to create your god.

I don't know of any scientific evidence that points to a beginning of the universe (a lot of speculation ... but a lot of speculation about an eternal/cyclic universe as well). There may be no scientific evidence that points to an eternal universe but then ... there is no scientific evidence that points to an eternal god, either.

What does "shows volts as amps" mean? What does "the amp holes are lit up" mean? What make/model of multimeter are you using? Do you have the instructions for it?

Why doesn't that apply to the universe?

All of this suggest some serious problems with your circuit and/or the methods you are using. Until you resolve that and can get consistent and meaningful results, you cannot really conclude anything.

I don't know how you have put your circuit together but I wouldn't be surprised if you have some poor or intermittent connections which are causing erroneous values. Or it could be that the battery voltage is running down between your measurements. Really, you need to be using a proper regulated power supply, rather than a battery. Ideally, you would use two ammeters: one to measure the total current and one to measure the current through one of the resistors. But, basically, electrical theory at this simple level has been extensively tested over hundreds of years. So I don't think you are suddenly going to find an obvious flaw.

You are obviously doing something wrong, but it isn't obvious what. Can you be a bit more specific: what is the voltage and what are the two currents?

And are you saying that the ammeter reads the same in position1 and poistion2?

Not a great source for scientific information. Yes. In relativity things such as distance, time, energy and many others are observer dependent.

Can you please explain how you determined the current through all the resistors. Did you measure it? If so, how? Did you calculate it? If so, how? A LED is not a resistor. It does not obey Ohm's law: it has a non-linear voltage-current relationship. Therefore the "resistance" reported by your meter depends on the voltage. The LED will light up if there is sufficient voltage drop. You don't give enough (any) information about your circuit to say whether this would be expected or not. What does that mean? Same effect as what? Paper, pen and scanner/camera?

Who said it doesn't make sense? I just asked if you thought a poll (here, presumably, among a self-selected atypical subset of the population) would be significant. Would it represent the real position of most people in the world?

Do you think that will be statistically significant?

How can a sound contain an image? That is well beyond the range of human hearing. And beyond the range that can be encoded in a standard audio file. And probably beyond the range that can be reproduced by most systems. I am not aware of frquencies like this having any noticeable effects on people (unlike infrasound).

There are hypothetical particle called tachyonw which only travel faster than light (they can't be slowed down to the speed of light). There have been experiments to detect such things but currently there is no evidence for them (and no real reason to believe they should exist). . The thing is, we think that speeds add linearly (you throw the rock at 5 mph from a car doing 60 mph, and as a result the rock is travelling at 65 mph) but that is only because at everyday speeds the error is too small to see. In fact velocities don't add linearly. The sum of two velocities is given by: [latex]s = {v+u \over 1+(vu/c^2)}[/latex] If you are in a car doing 90% of the speed of light and throw a rock at 90% of the speed of light, the combined velocity will be 99.45% of the speed of light. No. Although, if faster than light travel or communication were possible, it would be possible to pass a message back in time. I don't think that is the same as travelling back in time.This would cause all sorts of things to do with causality (the effects could be seen before the cause). I don't really know how you come to that conclusion.