Strange

Your use of the word "wave" is very confusing. By "group of waves" do you mean the sequence of peaks and troughs (sine wave) that makes up the waveforms in John's diagram or my animation? And by "wave" you mean one cycle (peak to peak, say) of that waveform? But here you use "wave" to mean the whole waveform (many cycles)? No wonder you are confused... Huh? Not sure where you get that mental model from. See my animation for how wavelength, etc is defined.

So there is no reason for anyone to take it seriously. It is just a fairy tale you have made up.

Doesn't work like that. (After all, in the frame of reference of the object, there is no mass increase so it can't turn into a black hole.) http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_fast.html

I don't know what you think the difference is. In John's drawing he has marked (with red dots) two consecutive peaks that represent the wavelength. (He has done this for four separate waveforms - not quite sure why, perhaps to show different points in time.) Of course. Why wouldn't it be? There is only one frequency. Look at the animation again. Each red dot is going up and down. They are all doing it at the same frequency (the same number of times per second). They are all at a different phase - a different point along the waveform. This is also the same time taken for the peaks to pass a fixed point. (In case that is what you mean by "two frequencies") Why not?

Yes. That is what happens with diffraction. Each slit acts as a new (almost) omnidirectional source. Well the wave is moving from left to right (say) in that diagram. So if you look at a specific point in the diagram you will see the peaks and troughs moving past. The distance between them is the wavelength. The time between them is the frequency. Not sure why you think water waves have been rejected. They have the same properties of wavelength, velocity and frequency. Does this help: Wavlength is the distance between any two equivalent points on the waveform. Speed is how fast the waveform moves from left to right. Frequency is how fast any red dot goes up and down again (cycles per second or hertz).

Sorry. (A failed attempt at humour.)

Welcome to the Wonderful World of Dalo where the simplest things are incomprehensible.

How can you possibly know that? And why should anyone believe it?

Wavelength is the distance between the soldiers (distance between peaks). Speed (of light or whatever) is the speed the soldiers are marching. Frequency is the rate at which soldiers pass you. It is what is known as an "analogy".

Rays would be sent in all directions from each slit. So, some of those will be parallel but most won't be. (Rays are at right angles to the wavefront so where you have waves going out as concentric circles, the rays will be radial lines.) Nt sure what you mean by transverse to one another. They are measuring different things. Wavelength is the distance between peaks. Frequency is the rate at which peaks pass some point. So they are obviously related to the speed of the wave.

Because they go through two different slits. So you end up with two waves from two different sources (the two slits). At different distances from the two slits, these two waves will have a different phase relationship. At some places the two peaks will coincide and the total amplitude will be double. In other locations, a trough and a peak will coincide and the total amplitude will be zero. If you work out where the peaks coincide (either by using math or drawing diagrams) you will find that it forms radial lines (blue on my diagram). And the points where they cancel also form radial lines (in between these).

This is kind of a "plan view" of the wave; whereas the normal sine-wave diagram is looking at it "sideways". The dotted lines show where the peaks of the sine waves are. But note that the peaks would be moving forward; this is just a frozen snapshot in time. They are (effectively). The read lines are the parallel peaks (of a plane wave). The green dotted lines are all the same distance apart - they are the concentric circles of waves from the slit. (Ditto the purple lines). Yes. The frequency is the time between each peak of the wave - so it is related to the wavelength and the speed of the wave. [latex]f = \frac v \lambda[/latex]

It is the distance between two peaks of the same wave. The peaks are represented by the red, green and purple dotted lines in my diagram. So the wavelength (shown as λ) is the distance between two red (or green or purple) dotted lines.

We can never know what "reality" really is, or even if any such things exists. Even if an experiment told us that we were part of a simulation, all that would tell us is that our observations make it appear that way. It wouldn't tell us if that was reality or not. And, in the end, it doesn't matter. Science is about constructing models based on what we observe and then testing them against what we observe. While these observations and models continue to be consistent it doesn't matter what is "really" out there.

I think it is just getting confusing with too much detail on one diagram ...

Actually, even I'm confused by the proliferation of lines and colours now! And I already understand how the interference pattern arises. Does this, slightly simpler, diagram help: The blue dotted lines show the places where the peaks of the waves (green and purple) from each slit coincide (constructive interference; therefore bright spot on the screen). In between those positions there will be less light, with a minimum where the peak from one side coincides with the ... ermmm... "anti-peak" from the other.

Theory is when you have a model that consistently produces accurate results. It is the closest thing to "fact" or "truth" that you get in science. No it isn't. It is required to explain a number of different observations. It may be that changes to relativity are required. And/or some extra matter. If relativity has to change to account for the effects described as "dark matter" then that may cause some change to the big bang model. It is unlikely to show that the model is wrong in general, but may cause some adjustment to the details. Because it has cooled along with the universe. With all your anti-science rants and rejection of evidence, I'm not really sure what you are doing here.

And how should this affect the choice of who you marry?

That is not a test of hearing (or whatever) being slightly better. You have chosen a task that is pretty much impossible without sight. That is not the same as some sense compensating for the lack of others. If such a thing happens: you haven't provided any references. As a counter example:

It is impossible to disprove any ideas like that (see also solipsism). As such, you can't actually prove any of the things you stated before. All you can do is confirm that they appear to be real to you.

If you reject all data that is not measured directly then that is pretty much all of science out of the window. You need to understand how science works and how we know (with a high level of certainty) that the universe was once much hotter and has cooled since then. That would take more than a short post and is off topic here. Ironically, given your comment above, you are interested in what goes on inside black holes, which is something we can never observe directly (even in principle). All we have are the predictions of various theories. Why is that acceptable here but not when it comes to the history of the universe? Absolutely not. Space is and always has been (as far as we know) homogeneously full of matter/energy. The big bang IS the expansion of space. There are different versions of the big bang as an "event" in different versions of the big bang model. In some models, there was no such event. I don't believe any (or certainly not many) scientists believe a singularity is anything other than an indication that our current theories no longer apply. There is no reason to think it has any physical reality. Both matter and radiation will end up at the singularity (in current models). There is no other direction they can go. We don't know where the original energy/matter in the universe came from. It could have always been there. It could be the result of an earlier universe collapsing. It could have been created by quantum fluctuations. There are (you will be pleased to know) theories that it could have come from the creation of a black hole in another universe. There are many other hypotheses but, at the moment, the only answer is "we don't know". (After all, we weren't there to observe it! ) Similarly, we don't really know why most or all galaxies have supermassive black holes at the centre. Or even how such black holes can form. Was the galaxy created first and then the black hole? or vice versa? Or did they develop together? One thing we can be sure of, they are not the result of multiple big bangs. There are theories with multiple big bangs (e.g. eternal inflation), and one thing they all have in common is that the universes created in that way are causally disconnected and moving apart at many times the speed of light.

Sigh. Luckily, you don't need to depend on me being there. Science uses theories based on evidence: https://sites.uni.edu/morgans/astro/course/Notes/section3/bigbang.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe#Summary http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBhistory.html https://sciencing.com/temperature-universe-during-big-bang-4822.html https://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130123101622.htm http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html http://www.astro.utu.fi/~cflynn/Stars/l1.html http://casswww.ucsd.edu/archive/public/tutorial/BB.html http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/bb/bb.html

This could be an interesting topic in its own right. But is probably a distraction here...

Neither I nor Einstein would agree with that. I really can't be bothered to go over it all again. If you didn't understand/accept the previous arguments, then it would be a waste of time, anyway.

Algorithms are a set of instructions. There is no evidence that such instructions exist. There is no evidence that such a set of instructions can exist (we certainly couldn't produce anything like that). And there is no evidence for anyone who could have written such a set of instructions. But all the changes in the universe can be explained without invoking god. Water runs downhill for well understood reasons that don't require your god to be there pushing it. And, anyway, why your god? Why not invisible pink unicorns pushing the water downhill? This is the fallacy of begging the question. You assume there has to be a reason and then invent an explanation. (For some reason, almost every description of this fallacy includes an example from religion. I wonder why...) Actually, it does explain how species arise. As there is no need for any such explanation, your god has no purpose. If that is what you mean by "algorithm" then you are abusing the word. It is interesting that the universe appears to behave in a consistent manner (I don't know about "logical" but never mind) but I don't see why that requires a god.