Strange

First, congratulations on actually doing an experiment and drawing some correct conclusions from it. This experiment was one of many that did, for a while, answer the old question of whether light was a wave or "corpuscular". This is where you begin to go wrong. Firstly, the idea of the photon was not developed over Einstein's career but very early in his career. You fail to mention what experimental observations could not be explained by the wave theory. It is probably worth pointing out that this is the photoelectric effect: the fact that electrons can be knocked from atoms by light. The important point here is that the brightness of the light does no affect whether the light is able to free an electron. If light were a wave, then a brighter light would correspond to a larger amplitude wave with more energy: this should be able to have enough energy to free an electron. But it turns out that the light must have a particular frequency. It doesn't matter how dim the light, as long as it has a high enough frequency, it has enough energy to release an electron. This combined with Planck's earlier work on the black body spectrum led to the idea of the photon. (For which Einstein got his Nobel Prize.) He certainly didn't dismiss these. They are the basis of special relativity. As is stated in Maxwell's equations. Anyway, as 110 years of evidence continue to support the fact that light is quantized, and the experiment you have done is irrelevant to that, I think we can conclude that physics is still in safe hands.

You keep referring to these "parameters". They seem to be things like "you find them interesting" and "unique" (used in a uniquely meaningless way). None of your "parameters" have any value as they are vague and subjective. Perhaps you are 14 and this sort of nonsense is a lot of fun. In which case, I will leave you to it.

They can describe real things in the same way that real numbers can. For example, when describing signals the imaginary part describes the phase (actually, its a little more complex than that).

Correct. I have no idea why you did it.

Exactly. That is what I said. The fact you don;t find them acceptable is your problem. The solution is to ignore them both. Focus on the science instead.

And what? That was the answer to your question: where do imaginary numbers fit? (And also an explanation of my feeble "joke" of "at right angles").

So basically everything. Every element and every possible compound. That is not just stupid but futile.

It was actually a joke. But complex numbers can be represented as points on a plane with the x axis as the reals and the y axis as the imaginary number line. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ArgandDiagram.html

At right angles to the reals.

Of course. Obviously. These two descriptions are mutually exclusive. Therefore, if you choose one the other is not applicable. Which part of "choose one or the other" do you not understand? You can choose one. Or you can choose the other. You cannot choose both. Really, how hard is that? One hundred and twenty posts and you still can't understand that one simple fact. Let's try again. Slowly: You can choose one description. Or you can choose the other description. You cannot choose both descriptions. Because they are mutually exclusive. Maybe if you carry on for another 7 pages, you will begin to understand what you are being told.

None of that is relevant to "obviously, there are finite amounts of real objects" being neither obvious nor necessarily true. That is all I was saying. If you want to modify that statement to "obviously, there are finite amounts of real objects in the observable universe" then I have no objection.

No it isn't. You really ought to learn about the theory you are criticising. OK. So it is Hoyle's "Quasi Steady State" theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory#Quasi-steady_state This was abandoned because it can't explain the CMB.

I was simply pointing out that "obviously, there are finite amounts of real objects" is neither obvious nor necessarily true. If you want to move the goalposts, that's fine with me. I don't want to say that. But thanks for the offer.

We have a theory of the evolution of the universe: it is called the big bang model. Just like the big bang model. Then your model is not as good as the big bang model, because that does include the evolution of the universe from before the first galaxies, and how galaxies form. Perhaps you could show us your model and we can make some constructive comments on it? Actually that's not true. Most scientists accepted it very quickly because there was overwhelming evidence form the work that he and Wallace did. Until you show us your solution, no one can really comment on it. After you have explained your model, you could go on and explain the evidence that supports it. But that seems to contradict the analogy with Darwinian evolution, which does not say that life has always existed (or that there is an infinite amount of life). Anyway, please go ahead and tell us your theory. It should, of course, quantitatively explain ALL the observations about the universe (CMB, proportions of hydrogen and helium, redshift-distance relationship, formation of large scale structures, etc)

You said "there are finite amounts of real objects" not "there are finite amounts of real objects that [have] measured". If the universe is infinite, there are an infinite number of real objects. Whether we can measure them or not.

So if you can produce a model that supports this, you could get a Nobel Prize. Go for it. The Doppler effect is very definitely not the preferred model. It gives the wrong results. Then it is not science (and is crackpottery). But, actually, I disagree. I'm sure this could be tested. All you need to do is come up with a model. Breaking it on a scientific basis would be very, very productive. I don't see why not. Then how can you possibly say what needs to be added.

There are certainly scientists who started out without an education in science. For example, you might work as a lab technician or an engineer supporting scientists and then move into working as a scientist, picking up some of the knowledge you need on the job.. I don't know how often this happens in reality, though. (I worked on a cosmic microwave background experiment years ago, without even having an engineering degree at the time.)

"Feels correct" is not science and not falsifiable. As there are no scientific models that match this, one can only assume that your "feelings" are leading you astray.

Not even these guys: http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093

That sounds like a philosophical argument. (Actually, I don't understand what you are trying to say, there.) That is not obvious at all. The universe may be infinite, in which case it is filled with an infinite number of atoms.

Arbitrary Generic Subjective Stupid Pointless Random Meaningless The problem is not that items on the list are "vague", it is that the defintion of the list is vague, undefined, arbitrary and entirely subjective. You suggest that the items should be "unique" in some way, but there is a massive amount of overlap and duplication so none of them are unique in any meaningful way. For example you have the following items, all of which could be covered by the first item (or several of the others): Mineral, Mountain, Lava (or magma), Mud, Ophiolite Crust, Radioactive Material, Sand, Shale. And these could be described by one or more of the following "unique" adjectives from your list (and others): Amorphous, Ancient, Atomic, Changing, Eroded, Heavy, Igneous, Molten, Plentiful, Primordial, Undulating. You also have some made-up words in the list. This list is as useful as writing a program that picks random words from a dictionary. Your attempts to justify it by referring to non-existent or poorly-defined "parameters" makes it clear that the entire enterprise is arbitrary and meaningless.

Now that this is in The Lounge, can I just say that this list would definitely be in the Top 10 Stupidest Lists Ever (that list would, of course, include itself).

It is also entirely negative. All you have said is "what if time and space aren't fundamental". You haven't suggested something else. For example, that actually energy and momentum are fundamental and space-time is emergent. Or that our perceptions are a side effect of a battle of wills between the unicorns and turtles. Or ... something. Come on, man. Don't be so lazy.

So what was the purpose of your post, then?

Huh? It is a theory, a very succesfull and well-tested theory. That is why it IS science. Mathematical model: check Quantitative predictions: check Predictions tested (and confirmed) by observation: check Model adjusted based on evidence: check Yep. Sounds like science to me. Errr ... Yes. It is scientific theory. That is what scientific theories do. Don't worry, there never will be. Scientific theories are never proved. Observation, not postulate. Science has nothing to do with what you like or dislike. (Maybe you want philosophy, just down the corridor.) No. Stars and galaxies didn't form until after hundreds of millions of years. That is not the reason. Surely you don't really think that? Are you able to produce a mathematical model that produces results consistent with observation? No? Do you that that, just maybe, that is why the idea isn't accepted? And then you have all the other, much more important and compelling, evidence for the big bang. How would you address those? Why focus on one of the least important bits of evidence? (Until the other evidence turned up, there were several alternative models.) That is back to front (to put it politely). The reason it is widely accepted is because it is the best model that fits all the evidenec. It depends why the disagree. If you disagree because you have an alternative model that fits all the evidence, then you are not a crackpot. If you disagree on the grounds of aesthetics or simply disbelief, then you are. Don't be that guy, as they say. sounds more like the sad state of your ignorance of science. Then you have absolutely no rational basis for saying it is wrong.