Strange

The answer is that it doesn't exist in a realm of no time and no space. For one thing, that is not a valid extrapolation to a photon frame of reference (you can tell this is so because it involves division by zero). For another thing, we measure the photons speed in our frame of reference. But as this has been explained a couple of times already, I assume you prefer to remain ignorant.

That is not the usual definition. On the other hand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_taboo And I am fairly sure there aren't many religions that consider puss or mucus to be sacred.

Amateur. "Six cents a bottle. But just for you, a valued customer, as a limited time offer: two bottles for 13 cents. But hurry, stocks are limited."

That is not a very interesting conclusion. Especially as "sacred" doesn't really mean anything. A lot of religions consider blood, excreta, etc to be "unclean" and not holy. So this doesn't seem to be a widely held idea. And, by analogy (as you are fond of them), maybe light is sacred but photons are unclean.

No, you haven't. Here are just a few of the questions you have refused to answer: 1. For what reason do you think that CO2 would be attracted to salt water? 2. Why would passing an electric current change this? 3. How, exactly would you modify a CRT for this purpose? 4. In what way is electro-magnetic energy (i.e. light) "associated" with a water molecule? 5. And why would you expect this to increase? There are others, and questions that others have asked you. 6. Why would you expect non-local behaviour? 7. What effect would this have? 8. Why would passing a current change its gravitational field? You just keep adding more and more outrageous claims, without explaining anything.

1. You skipped the part that said "that is not a valid frame". Which is slightly dishonest. 2. You still haven't addressed the fact that we can measure the speed of light.

Why do you refuse to answer any questions?

No it doesn't. It is a constant. "Constant: staying the same : not changing" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/constant

Why do you refuse to answer any questions? I assume because it would expose your total ignorance of the subject.

The W boson would still have charge and could still have an anti-particle (I assume).

Doh. I should have realised that he wouldn't suddenly start answering questions (in an unexpectedly intelligent way!)

Nor do I really, I suspect it is more that the odd beliefs of Nobel Prize winners (or other prominent people) are more likely to be noted.

Prove it. Feel free to use mathematics.

So some cultures have treated the Sun as a god. So what.

This is one of your errors: the energy required to wind the spring cannot be less than is released by unwinding the spring. You have also failed to take into account the inefficiencies in the system (friction, losses in the motor and generator, etc). You haven't made a discovery.

Thank you for actually answering a question. So you want to increase the temperature by passing a current through it (this is kinetic energy not electromagnetic energy). I suspect it would be more efficient to do this by using a traditional heating element. What is the significance of the the IR radiation emitted by the warmer water? You do realise that the solubility of CO2decreases with increasing temperature? So if you want to "attract" more CO2, you should cool the water, not heat it. This is why a basic understanding of physics would be useful. Doh.

You might need to Google backtracking algorithms (for regular expression matching). But note that the size of your Turing machine (and therefore run time) may grow exponentially with the size of pattern it needs to recognize.

As ancient cultures did not know about photons, how could they be relevant?

In what way is electro-magnetic energy (i.e. light) "associated" with a water molecule? And why would you expect this to increase? Feel free to use mathematics in your reply.

Why would I be afraid of that. I like this forum because there are a lot of people who know much more than me that I can learn from. (You are clearly not one of them.) I have frequently asked you "why" questions. You have refused to answer them, in the same way you refuse to answer any questions. Presumably because attempting to do so would expose your ignorance. I have asked why you think it wilol work; what is the theoretical basis for this experiment. You have no answer other than "magic". You have given no reason or explanation as to why it should work. Which is why no one takes you seriously.

So nothing sacred, just biochemistry.

It takes light 8 minutes to travel the 150 km from the Sun to the Earth, so you are obviously wrong. And on a more everyday level, we use radar systems that calculate distance by measuring the time it takes for "light" (radio waves) to travel to a target and back. So obviously the speed of light is not an oxymoron. And the same technique is used to measure the (changing) distance to the moon by bouncing light off reflectors placed on the surface.

Accelerating a particle only increases its energy in your frame of reference, not in its own. If you think you can define energy or velocity relative to the Higgs field, then that would imply that it is some sort of absolute frame of reference. I understand that. But I think you are wrong with regard this specific point (regarding the energy imparted to the particle). The way fermions interact with the Higgs mechanism is way over my head!

You mean all four of them? That is crazy.

So you are confirming that the reason you won't answer any questions is because you don't know anything. You can do your experiment but as you don't know enough to understand the results, it seems a bit pointless. Don't you think it would be more effective to learn a little basic physics before embarking on this project?