Strange

I think it would be white again. In additive colour mixing (which is what this is) CMY are secondary colours, in other words, each of them is formed from a combination of two primary colours (RGB). So, indirectly, you would be mixing equal amounts of RGB. Even if the CMY lights were (approximately) single frequencies, centred on those colours (and not a mixture of RG, GB, RB) I think it would fool the eye into seeing white. It would be interesting to know what actually happens... Ah, I see koti has confirmed my thinking with a much more logical argument. (Curse him! )

I did read it. And I have just read it again a couple of times. I find it confusing and contradictory. But as it has satisfied the OP, I'll leave it at that.

Can you provide a link to this research? (I assume that should be Qingdao; Quingdao doesn't look like a valid Chinese word.)

If it could be done "simply" we would already have a theory of quantum gravity. We don't because this is not a simple problem. That is not how gravitons would mediate the gravitational force.

Here is a list of such experiments from 1861 to 2008. And is consistent with other measures such as the growth of industrial/economic activity and the spectrum of radiation radiated from the Earth.

I think that is only for people proposing their own hypotheses/theories, not for discussion of scientific hypotheses that have not been confirmed. So is the question about whether photosynthesis and magnetoreception could have evolved from the same source? (Thanks for clarifying. I would never have been able to pick that out of the dense list of references to other work that you provided in your first couple of posts.) Perhaps someone with relevant expertise will comment now that is clearer...

The trouble is, there is evidence for something happening that is not yet explained. You seem to think it is a mistake to try and find an explanation for this evidence. Why is that? Why don't you do it? You just need Newton's law of gravity. You will find that the gravitational force extends to infinity. However, it rapidly becomes insignificant compared to the mass of the stars in the central bugle. (I don't know why you think no one has done this, it is a trivial bit of arithmetic.) Of course it is. The only reason that there is a need for dark matter in galaxies is because there isn't enough mass in the hub, the arms and the halo.

The big bang happened (and is still happening) in the entire universe, not at some localised point within it.

That sounds a little like the "delayed quantum eraser" experiment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser

Yes, that is what quantum biology is. And ... Was there something particular you wanted to discuss about it? (For example, I can't see any connection to the thread title in anything you have posted so far.)

That implies that the Doppler effect cannot exist. But both that and gravitational red-shift are well attested.

They don't. They are not supposed to be infinitesimal, they are supposed to be infinitely dense and have infinite curvature. But as they don't exist (outside of theory) .... <shrug> The neutron is not the smallest possible particle. The electron (and other fundamental particles) have zero size. Why not? Look at a graph of the tan function. It reaches infinity (gradually) at pi/2.

I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, quantum effects are important in some aspects of biochemistry. But, ultimately, all chemistry is due to quantum effects. So ... what exactly ... Perhaps you could summarise your main point in a sentence or two?

But apart from that ... (what have the Romans ever done for us)

Well the size of the black hole (the radius of the event horizon) is proportional to its mass. I wouldn't worry about trying to make sense of the singularity as there probably isn't one! Atoms are compressible. There are neutron stars, for example, where they are compressed so much that the electrons are forced to combine with protons. So, if the singularity (or even something approaching it) did exist, the matter that fell into it would not be in the form of atoms.

If that sphere has non-zero size, then the density will not be infinite: density = mass / volume. So if the volume is anything greater than zero, however small, you will get a finite (but possibly very large) value for density. Also, strictly speaking, division by zero does not result in infinity; it is actually undefined. And that is basically what the presence of the singularity tells us: the theory is predicting something undefined (unphysical).

The only theory I am aware of that makes predictions for the inside of the event horizon, so far, is string theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzball_(string_theory)

Things can certainly fall into black holes (but the bit about wormholes and other universes is pretty speculative and may not have any basis in reality). A block hole does not have a solid surface. What is described as the "surface" of a black hole is the event horizon. This is the point (in the simplest case, a spherical surface) where it is not possible for anything inside the horizon to communicate with anything outside. So not light or matter can escape from the event horizon. We don't actually know what really happens inside the event horizon. They only theory we currently have that describes black holes is general relativity. This does indeed say that all matter falls in and reaches the center of the black hole and is compressed to infinite density (a singularity). I don't think anyone believes this is what happens, unfortunately we don't have a theory that says what could stop this. We probably need a theory of quantum gravity to understand what really happens. You are right, there is no largest number (you can always add 1 to get to a larger one). So infinity can be defined as how many numbers there are (the cardinality of the set of integers, for example). This then leads to the idea that there are multiple values of infinity (the cardinality of the set of reals is [infinitely] greater than the cardinality of the set of integers). And that is why no one thinks the singularity is a real thing. It just indicates that they theory no longer applies there.

We seem to be back to your inability to explain your ideas with any sort of detail or clarity. 1. What is "5.972 × 10^24 kg" ? (I think I know, but you should be explaining what you are doing at each step) 2. What is "299792^2" ? (Again, I think I know, but you should be explaining what you are doing at each step) 3. If the answer to (2) is c then why have you not shown the units? 4. What is "5.4×10^41 Joules" ? Where did this number come from? 5. What is the result of this calculation (0.00000099) supposed to represent? 6. What does "3600 seconds*G" mean? (This comes to 2.4 × 10-7 m3 kg-1 s-1, which doesn't seem to relate to anything else in your "equation" or have much physical meaning.) 7. Why do you have a proportionality symbol (∝) there? Or is that supposed to be the fine structure constant? My scientific prediction based on evidence so far is that you will either not answer these questions at all or you will provide random non-sequiturs as a response. Prove me wrong! (as the crackpots like to say)

I doubt that is the reason. I have never worked for a company that thought they could charge people for bug-fixed versions of a product. Paid upgrades should be (and are) based on added functionality, improved performance, etc. Having spent most of my career designing microprocessors for some of the largest semiconductor companies, I can assure you that is not true either.

Barely. I had assumed English is not your native language. Academia has never got to me, I'm afraid. But I can confidently state that your posts on this subject are meaningless nonsense.

Chemistry. No. As we have left the realms of science for ... well, I don't know what ... I'm out of here.

I am not making a claim or an argument one way or another. Just that O have only heard vaguely convincing arguments on one side and "magic" on the other. That is an unjustified assertion, not an argument. There are plenty of living things that are not conscious (by any reasonable definition of "conscious"). Some of them are even animals. And how do you know consciousness has to be alive? What evidence is there for that? How do you know that? And what is it about the brain that allows it to do that? And what prevents a different (but otherwise equivalent) machine doing the same thing? Sounds like magic to me.

I am exaggerating very slightly in this list. But not much. Write a specification. Get it reviewed. Then write a test plan based on the specification. Get it reviewed. Then write the tests, based on the test plan. Get them reviewed. Correct the specification based on the errors this throws up. Write the documentation. Get it reviewed. Correct the specification and test plan based on the errors this throws up. Oh, yes. Implement the software. (Nearly forgot.) Correct the specification and test plan based on the errors the throws up. Run the test suite for each module and for the complete program. Fix any bugs and get the changes reviewed before committing them back to the repository. This should not be the longest part of the development process (but, sadly, for most people it is).

I think that to process a batch of files, sed is still the easiest way. None of the editors I commonly use make it quite as easy. Of course. Reminded me of Larry Wall's three great virtues of a programmer: laziness, impatience and hubris. I am of the view that coding standards are important. When I was one of the people running a small design team with a bunch of new graduates, we would go in and review their work after hours. If they had abused the coding standards too much we would just delete all their work and explain why the next day. (Sounds unbelievable, when I say it now. But it worked!) This was in hardware design where standards are much, much more important (because there are millions of pounds of manufacturing costs at stake). People who do software are just much sloppier - I think this is why there are always so many bugs in software. The "we can fix it later" ability and attitude breeds contempt for specifications, standards and testing. If they had to get it right first time, then I suspect things would be a bit different.