Strange

What do you mean by "precise"? Do you mean you have a mathematical model that can make exact predictions of the expected results? He must be a remarkably stupid scientist then. Are you claiming that a single electron will generate an interference pattern? What role does this camera play in the experiment? Perhaps you could be a little more "precise" about the experimental setup. Can photons be entangled with atoms? What is "distance creation"? What does it mean for it to be "displaced"? And why would entanglement cause this? What does entanglement have to do with relativity? What are "strings of distance"? As your theory is so "precise", perhaps you could say exactly what effect this will have. You say they lines and shapes are predictable, how about showing us your predictions. How is this relevant? How is this relevant?

Are you guessing that "based upon what he said or wrote"? Or are you just making it up because it suits your world view? I assume the latter. 1. Communism is not always considered bad. 2. Communism is not always atheistic. 3. Those who do consider it bad do not do all do so because it may be atheistic. So this is just nonsense really.

Excellent post, apart from this: Chinese works like any other language. And the writing system reflects the spoken language just the same as any other writing system.

Why not study physics, instead of science fiction?

And your response is a classic strawman fallacy. (Why do you do that?) Another alternative is that attention and consciousness are underpinned by some other mechanism than language. But you are making it clear (again) that you have no support for any of your assertions. (Despite stating them with such confidence.) The whole purpose of the scientific process is to get away from what seems "obvious" as such things are very often wrong. So you have a definition of the word that is so broad as to be useless. And also appears to ensure that whatever nonsense you come up can be correct using that definition (which no doubt you will modify, if necessary, to encompass anything you want to assert).

In case anyone else is wondering, KDD is "Knowledge Discovery in Databases". It's a new one on me. http://www2.cs.uregina.ca/~dbd/cs831/notes/kdd/1_kdd.html

I'm not really sure what difference you are trying to make. But the reasons we accept the postulate are (1) it is derived from Maxwell's theory of EM; (2) the resulting theory (SR) is very well tested (and enables us to manufacture devices like the computer you are using). It seems reasonable that the laws of physics should be the same regardless of your position and state of (inertial) motion. And this is confirmed by many, many tests of Lorentz invariance (to almost ridiculous levels accuracy in some cases). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation The velocities sum relativistically. So if the particles are moving at 99%c and the helicopter is flying at 99%c, then the combined velocity of the particles is 99.99494975001263% c. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/einvel2.html

Most people I know are totally indifferent to the idea. What, you mean like priests? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

I guess you don't know what a black body spectrum is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation Note the "constant, uniform temperature". Multiple bodies at different termperatures is not the same thing. The back body spectrum varies with temperature. Also, the next sentence from the page you quoted is: "This produces a fairly flat overall spectrum." In other words, not a black body. It then talks about strong emission and absorption peaks; i.e. not a black body spectrum. I don't understand any of that. What does "stronger" mean? What is "this radiation"? Because the universe WAS a black body. (See post 2.) The CMB is the light from that time (cooled by expansion.)

Because the main sources of radiation (stars and gas in galaxies) are not much like black body spectra. More here: http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/nicole/teaching/ASTR505/lectures/lecture26/slide01.html

It was a black body. Not any more.

What does "mode of thought" mean? And what does it have to do with "formatting of the words"? And "formatting of words" is a very odd way to characterise grammar. It is almost as if you know nothing about linguistics. Oh, hang on ... Or maybe it is just made-up nonsense. As you haven't attempted to explain it, that sounds like the most likely explanation.

Nothing is sent from one particle to the other. It might be better to think of it as a single "thing" (the wavefunction) which is spread though all of space (and time). Any measurement of it in one place must correlate with measurements made somewhere else because you are measuring the same thing. Although what you measure cannot be known in advance. I think this seems counter-intuitive because, at everyday speeds, time and distance appear to have a linear relationship. But in reality, they don't. So you can only asymptotically approach the speed of light.

Who is this "we" you keep speaking of? Are you projecting your own shortcomings on to other people?

No. What "seems strange" is not a good basis for deciding whether something is good physics or not. Particles in the LHC are accelerated to speeds of about 99.9999991% of c. And they behave exactly as predicted by relativity (otherwise the LHC wouldn't work). Saying that the mass would become infinite is not really accurate as you are talking about an impossible situation. Rockets don't use "energy in the form of the electromagnetic spectrum". (Unless you are going to completely re-interpret that phrase to mean anything which can be used to propel something. At which point your argument becomes circular.) And the speed at which something moves is not dependent on the speed of its propellant. Imagine there is a spacecraft passing Earth at 0.5c. On that spaceship someone is using a device that shoots electrons at 0.5c. From the earth, you will measure the speed of those electrons to be 0.8c. Velocities do not add linearly, so you can never get to c.

What do you mean by "empty space"? In reality, there is no perfect vacuum and so space is never truly empty. And at the quantum level, there are always particles appearing and disappearing. Space is always full of fields, such as the electromagnetic field or the Higgs field.

Why would you say that? What evidence do you have? Why? Quarks are strongly consrained by the strong force. What is making them move apart? What are "rays of distance"? Why? What is a "force field of energy"? How can distance push on distance? I have a new ruler; it doesn't push on my old ruler. What is the cause of this friction? What makes you think think that would cause electromagnetic phenomena? What makes you think this has anything to do with the Higgs bososn (which is electrically neutral)? Not unless you are redefining that term. The rest of your post becomes increasingly nonsensical.

Yes. And all attempts to measure a physical size are consistent with that (in other words they appear to have zero, or as close as we can measure to zero, size). All the evidence is consistent with that. No information is transferred and so this doesn't violate relativity. It doesn't really matter. However you sum velocities the total will be less than c. You should do that in the "speculations" forum.

The logic you used appears to be circular. (If it is logic at all, it sounds like more of your baseless assertions.) Applied science is called technology and, ironically, allows you to communicate your opinions and assertions all round the world in an instant with no difficulty at all.

The rules are not raised in regard to his opinions, but the way he expresses them. If he had started out by saying, "my limited experience of atheists has been negative (I hope they are not all like that)" it would be different matter. But by making (what appear to be) general statements of fact about atheists (in general) he gives the impression of making slurs against an entire group.

Only if you are redefining "language". How is that relevant? Citation needed. (Other than Tarzan movies.) I find it extraordinary that you can spew out these ridiculous claims, some of which are very obviously false, with such confidence. Neither will it howl at the moon. What does "formatting of the words" mean? Citation needed. This sounds like a version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. And is therefore false. (Except in a very, very weak form, which is almost undetectable except under very carefully controlled laboratory experiments.) You are just making stuff up now. Hilarious. I would love to see your evidence for that.

So you are saying that those people who failed to learn a language didn't exist? That is a pretty extraordinary claim. You had better have some pretty extraordinary evidence. I hope you have some pretty impressive evidence for this as it appears to be completely untrue. It would only be more accurate if you have some support for this. Less of the "we" there.

And the question is, effectively, is there any other evidence that corroborates the stories in the bible. There are many other characters mentioned in the Bible. We are fairly certain that some of these are real because there are a variety of other source which confirm what the Bible says. That does not seem to be the case for Jesus so it is hard to confirm that he was a real person. Or, even, that he was a single person. There were many Messianic and gnostic (and therefore secretive) cults at the time and so the biblical stories could be an amalgam of several different people.

There are a couple of problems with this. The first is that particles do not actually "spin"; they have angular momentum, but this is not due to actual rotation. (And fundamental particles such as electrons have zero radius, so there is no concept of angular velocity.) Secondly, velocities do not add linearly in relativity. So if you add 0.5 c + 0.5 c, the result is 0.8 c. As a velocities alwats sum to less than c. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/einvel2.html

This is just wrong. Energy is observer dependent. You can't equate energy seen by one observer with the energy seen by another. Please stop posting nonsense.