Strange

Looks like you are describing something like the "quantum eraser" experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment This uses entanglement to determine which slit each photon goes through. Note that there is also a delayed version of this, where the observation isn't made until after the interference pattern (or otherwise) is created.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. The relative quantities of hydrogen and helium which make up pretty much all the matter in the universe are exactly what is predicted by the big bang model. So that is good confirmatory evidence for the model and the age of the universe.

Well, we know electromagnetism exists so we do live in an electro-magnetic universe (i.e. one that include electromagnetic interactions among the fundamental forces). Unless you are thinking of that "electric universe" nonsense...

You can also think of multiplying by -1 as rotation by 180° (which reverses the direction along the number line). This answers this question and also nicely leads on to an understanding of complex numbers.

You can vary the results in a predictable way that is consistent with theory. What Lazarus is claiming is that you can produce any result. That is what makes it worthless as a model of anything in particular.

That is the trouble with relying on intuition rather than the maths. No. You could study the theory and supporting evidence. Do you have any evidence for that claim? Any peer reviewed papers or experiments that show GR is incorrect?

Maybe. Although you have provided no support for this. It also means that the thought experiment has no value at all, if it can produce any result.

If you are considering a model with a singularity, then there is no "before" the big bang. I don't know of anyone who considers that a realistic possibility. There are several model which give the universe and infinite age. If there were a singularity, then there is no meaning to "period of existence" There can be no events inside a singularity, by definition. Not a reasonable assumption. The universe may be infinite in size (and therefore mass). As the heat death is based on current conditions, I can't really see how the initial state is relevant. But currently, all we know is that it was extremely hot, extremely dense and extremely homogeneous.

Again, you are wrong. Any form of energy (and mass, and momentum and pressure, ...) contribute to space-time curvature. Of course, if you have an alternative theory, you could show us the maths ... E is not (necessarily) kinetic energy and it is, by definition the same as Mc2. And this is the equation relating rest mass and energy. If you want to consider things that are not at rest, then you need the full form of the equation. (But you knew that, right?)

I think he is trying to show that you don't need quantum effects to generate an interference pattern using solid objects. By contriving a set of suitably sized and shaped objects for the balls to bounce off, he is (I think) claiming that the balls will land in a pattern resembling a diffraction pattern. (The word quincunx comes to mind: http://www.mathsisfun.com/data/quincunx.html) And therefore (look out for the leap in logic) light is not waves!

We can never say what they "are"; all we can do is describe their behaviour in different ways and in different levels of detail. You can get any level and accuracy of description that you want. But no one can ever tell you what they really are.

Yes. And, of course, no... Richard Feynman - Magnets (And 'Why' Questions): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjmtJpzoW0o

Firstly, that isn't how nations form; they form by combining a number of heterogeneous groups under one name. Secondly, if you could run such an experiment, it seems likely that final nations would form at a much larger level than homogeneous social groups (which looking around the small town I live in, probably only exist at the level of nuclear family. Anything larger, such as a group of friends in the pub, is generally pretty heterogeneous).

You haven't. Every attempt to do so has been shown to be mathematically incorrect or simply an assertion.

Or how about: you show us your calculations?

And we are back to unsupported assertions. Please provide either a theoretical derivation of this result, or some experimental evidence.

You really don't know what any of these words mean, do you. And yet you throe them around with such confidence. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Geodesic.html http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Topology.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

You don't actually know what a metric is, do you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_tensor#Definition

That is a better definition (I was thinking of temperature).

They are not the same thing; they are different forms of energy. Heat is a measure of the kinetic energy of the particles (atoms) in a material. Light is electromagnetic radiation. A hot object can cool down by radiating electromagnetic radiation (or photons, if you want the quantum view). Or it gain heat by absorbing radiation (photons).

Prehaps you could show us the evidence that this experiment works as claimed; for example, some photos of the experimental setup and the positions that the balls land. I think you have claimed that. I am fairly sure you didn't show it to be the case.

The maths and evidence supporting all these claims.

The "brim" does extend to infinity (it simply isn't shown - to save paper). That has no connection at all to the height (or depth, in this case) of the function.

Just to expand slightly on my earlier comments (I am often criticised for being too blunt). We have known for a long time that life is just a series of chemical reactions, and that the universe is just a series of physical interactions. That doesn't make any difference at all to our ability laugh, love, cry, create and enjoy art, be amazed that we can do all those things, etc. In other words, we create the meaning in our lives. We don't require it to be inherent in the universe (or our genes). Also, your "robot" comment is quite wrong. Very few things are absolutely determined by genes. Generally, they only define a tendency or probability of a particular trait or disease. So, we can look at your genes and tell whether you have blue eyes. But there are also genes associated with psychopathy but most people with those genetic markers are not psychopaths; it requires a particular environment in combination with the genes.

I haven't heard the mass of protons and neutrons described that way before. It is normally described as the binding energy (in the gluon field). But I guess that might be an equivalent way of looking at it. The problem with just taking virtual particles as being the extra mass is that these just represent the vacuum energy which (I am fairly sure) is not enough to account for dark matter. It is also not distributed in the way that dark matter is (greatest density at the centre of galaxies, etc). However,there is at least one attempt to explain dark matter in this way: http://phys.org/news/2011-08-dark-illusion-quantum-vacuum.html But this assumes that matter and anti-matter have opposite gravitational "charge" and, currently, there is no reason to think that is the case. (This is being tested by the ALPHA project at CERN.)