Strange

To add to that, the ionisation energy (the energy to completely remove an electron at the lowest energy level from the atom) is 2.18 × 10−18 joule (13.6 electron volts). You can convert that to the frequency of the photon required to displace it (3.2884654 × 1015 hertz) You need to provide some references to this. The only Rifes I am aware of seems to be some sort of 1930s crank.

An oscillator generates a constant frequency because it is a "tuned circuit". To understand this, think about a capacitor that has a certain charge on it: if you discharge it through a resistor then it will take a fixed time to discharge. The time is a function of the capacitance and resistance values. Then think about the feedback you get when a microphone gets too close to a speaker. The frequency of that feedback depends on the time it takes for the signal to go round the loop. In an electronic circuit you can use the R and C values with an amplifier and feedback to generate a specific frequency.

An assumption isn't based on evidence, by definition.

Why pick on religion. Do you think that all opinions, preferences and beliefs should be entirely rational and evidence based? So we must develop some sort of formalised ranking system for op music so that scientists know what music they should listen to? And we should have a science of politics and then scientists will all vote the same way because it is obviously "right"? Everyone has opinions and beliefs that are, to some extent, irrational. The fact that there are (and always have been) a large number of religious scientists who are very successful at their work shows that this is not a problem. Claiming that it is a problem is irrational and contradicted by evidence.

By that definition, everything is "unknown". Which is why your comments are ridiculous.

If the light is absorbed it will exert a force. If it is reflected it will exert twice the force (conservation of momentum).

Spectroscopy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy

Because this is a SCIENCE forum. If someone says that it is possible to travel faster than light, then I expect them to explain how that is possible within known SCIENCE. I would be delighted to be proved wrong, but as far as I know it is impossible to travel faster than light in current known SCIENCE. The fact that there is an annoying kind in the corner who keeps saying "but it might not be" with no rational basis, evidence or theory doesn't change that. It just gets tedious after a while. Please stop doing it. Actually, on second thought, carry on. That is what the ignore function is for.

As, by definition, we are not causally connected to the non-observable universe it doesn't really matter. It can't make any difference. OK. How about this for a deal: whenever someone writes a statement about science, "X", you will interpret it to mean, "It appears to be that, according to our current best theories and consistent with observations (within certain error bounds) X may be the case." And we can all assume you will respond with your deeply insightful and profoundly thought provoking, "ah, but it might not be" without you actually having to do it. That way we will all save a lot of time. Or you could just stop being contentious by repeatedly posting the trivially obvious.

It is not a claim, it is a rational default position. With no evidence that the laws of physics are different elsewhere, why would you claim they are? (That was the point of the "chocolate" comment earlier. You can't just make up stuff like "the laws of physics are different over there".) Of course, everyone concedes that they could be different. And experiments have been done to test it. So far there is no evidence against the default position. That is how science works.

This is a science forum, not a pace to spam books by deluded idiots.

To perceive the range of frequencies that you call yellow, they only need to have active green cones (as you can see from the diagram). When you tell them that colour is called "yellow" then they will say that everything through to (what you call "red") are shades of something called "yellow". After all, that's is what they have been told to call it.

Not at all. Everyone knows there is more to be discovered. That is what makes science so exciting. It is the attitude that because we don't know everything, then everything we know must be wrong. Which is just silly.

Which is something a lot of anti-science types like you say about much modern science. And it never got anywhere with baseless speculation, either.

Energy doesn't decay. It is a property of things, not a thing itself. Also, there isn't any connection between dark energy and dark matter (beyond the similar names). The weak and electromagnetic forces are already unified at high enough energies (in the electroweak force). It is also assumed that the strong force will unify with these, for example in the extreme conditions in the early universe. However, no one currently knows how these can be unified with gravity. And none of this has any (direct) connection to dark matter. No.

As always I assume that, this being a science forum, all statements are accompanied by "according to our best theories" and "consistent with the current evidence" and "as far as we know" etc. Saying "oh we might learn something new in future" is slightly silly and spectacularly unhelpful. Yes, one day we might find that black holes are full of chocolate or Pluto is inhabited by My Little Ponies or that to go faster than light you just need to say "Einstein" three times backwards. But this is a SCIENCE forum. Where we discuss SCIENCE.

The other point is that when they see "yellow" it means they are having the same experience as when they look at something yellow. But that does not mean they see the same thing that a normally sighted person would. In other words the yellow they see is not necessarily the same yellow that someone else sees. It just has the same name because it has the same [set of] real-world referents. (Cue endless discussion about qualia.)

Please stop posting stupid pictures. It is extremely annoying. The values in the quadrants show what result you get for the sine and cosine of various angles. The animation shows that if you take the cosine function and plot the values you get as you increase the angle, you end up with a sinusoidal wave. This wave also occurs in many natural systems (a pendulum, a vibrating string, etc) as these are all examples of simple harmonic motion. And, as you noted originally, light also consists of sinusoidal electric and magnetic waves.

I think you have too many questions for this to be an effective way of learning. It might be better for you to go and read up about how radios work and then come back with specific questions about bits you don't understand. But ... The carrier wave is a sine wave (not pulses) generated by an oscillator. The signal is used to added to the carrier either by a modulator. This changes either the amplitude of the carrier (AM) or the frequency of the carrier (FM). How "exactly" it does this is pretty complicated. (Keywords for searching in bold.)

I have no idea what you are talking about.

There is, quite reasonably, a limit on the time for edit ing messa ges. Perhaps you should put more effort into for mat tin g you r mess ages so they are rea dabl e befor e postin g. The content could be improved as well.

This is trivially shown to be wrong because it violates several conservation laws. Also, making stuff up that has no evidence is not how science works. (But you do get kudos for calling it a hypothesis rather than a theory. Although it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis. Because, you know, evidence.)

That doesn't make much sense. Just making stuff up that has no basis in science doesn't show that things can move faster than light.

I don't see it as political, just wrong. There is NO sense in which you would be going faster than light.

I must have been really bored ... the attached graph shows the value of the angle from the animation as a function of E (blue line). The red line is a sine curve over the same range for comparison (I thought the result was simply going to be a sine, at first).