Strange

Easy. All you have to do is show an experiment that contradicts relativity. Until then, we can safely assume you are wrong.

No. Such as training in science? You need to do more than just assert this is so; you need to provide a mathematical proof. What object have you seen that "accelerated to a superluminal speed from a stationary position within a second or two"? And how did you measure its speed? Citation needed.

It isn't going anywhere. The photon is observed in a different frame of reference so there is no reason for it to have the same energy.

We have models (i.e. theories) which we test. We don't have to observe "time" directly to determine that the model works.

There are multiple problems with this. If you find that a logical argument returns a false or contradictory results, then there are two possibilities. One is that the logic is not well formed (valid) the other may be that the premises are incorrect (soundness). You appear to suffer from both these flaws. For example: Does not appear to be a logical argument. The premise (1 = 0) is indeed false but the consequent (something from nothing) is a non sequitur. Apart from that, there is no evidence that the universe came from nothing. And, as Vexen says, there no reason to assume that something cannot come from nothing.

Exactly. A piece of spaghetti (a spaghetto) is extended in space and time.

I'm not sure why you quoted that post, which says nothing about photons, to ask this question. But, no. A single photon will have less energy when it is received, in an expanding universe. This is just because it is received in a different frame of reference and energy is observer/frame dependent.

No you have described your grossly innaccurate misunderstanding of the big bang theory.

Are you thinking of something like this: http://www.space.com/19202-einstein-space-time-smooth.html

I think you should learn a little bit about the theory you are criticising. 1. There was not a black hole. 2. All of space was full of matter. 3. There was no empty space. 4. Matter was not "spewed out" of the big bang. (And there is no evidence that the big bang "started" the universe.)

Your basic points are full of errors.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I was talking about you. Just agreeing on the importance of (diverse) teams and the extremes that some people can go to in their isolation when developing their ideas.(These people often use the fact that they have been working on their idea for decades as evidence it must be right.) No one has thought that way for 100 years. That analogy truly is the kitten in the fruit bowl.

OK.

This question was discussed very recently on the BBC program "More or Less" we find out for our loyal listener how many individuals he will need to create a new race of people. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p029cx8y

Does wanting to impose house arrest on an asymptomatic nurse count?

I don't think anyone is upset. Indeed. Team work is almost always more effective than an individual working alone. Which is why it is so odd that there are so many individuals on science forums who think they have (all alone and ignoring all science) their own "theory of everything" or disproved relativity or whatever. If they had been part of a tema from the start then they might not have wasted 20 years or more on something that was so obviously wrong. By the time they come to share their ideas, they have become so narrowly focussed on their own correctness, they are not open to evidence, corrections, learning, etc. Sorry, drifting off topic there ...

The first result appears to be some sort of religious thing. Is that what you mean? Is this some sort of creationist argument? (God created strings and DNA in her own image)

What about people killed by cars, guns, electricity and other modern technology. Also, people still die of starvation, diseases and accidents. The selection pressures may have changed but they haven't gone away. You have produced no evidence to support this. Some evidence has been provided by others and it appears to contradict this belief.

They don't have anything like the same purpose (as I have tried to explain). This is unanswerable. For one thing your definition of "purpose" is unclear. Is it the construction of a living organism based on the encoding of small number of amino acids, that allows for the evolution of a wide range of different complex organisms? Or is it a mathematical model that can, perhaps, describe the behaviour of quantum particles? I fail to see how these can be united into a single purpose. How does this differ from an instruction manual (which is a better analogue from DNA) or the vibrational modes of a musical instrument (which has something in common with string theory) or the electron orbitals that define crystal structure and protein folding. And "in the universe"? How on Earth (*) would we know. If there other living organisms have evolved, who knows if they will use DNA or some totally different mechanism to support heritability and variation. (*) Pun intended.

So please explain what is the internal structure of a string that corresponds to the base pairs in DNA? What are the analogues to the proteins encoded by these base pairs? What is the equivalent to the system of ribosomes, mRNA, tRNA, rRNA, etc that transcibe the encoding an manufacture proteins? How does the problem of protein folding and enzyme function relate to string theory? What is the equivalent of biochemistry and metabolism in particle physics? How is the internal cell structure (membrane, cytoplasm, organelles, etc) related to the nature of fundamental particles? I could write a long list of questions, but I don't see any point.

I have no idea. This appears to be a concept you have invented. If I am mistaken, please provide a reference to a reliable source describing this model. The models of cosmology I am aware of do not have any "outside" so the question is meaningless.

The problem with this analogy is that the way strings define the properties of particles and the way that DNA encodes the structure of the cell are totally different. As ajb notes, the excitation of the string (which is a single thing with no structure) corresponds to a particle (which is a single thing with no structure). On the other hand, DNA is a complex structure encoding information to generate proteins. These proteins form the complex structures and biochemical reactions in a a living cell, which may itself just be one part of a multicelled organism. So I see zero value in this analogy. It is like saying that "the human mind is like a grapefruit because you cannot tell what is going on inside". Unless you can show that there is some useful mathematical or structural relationships which can be used to advance either genetics or string theory, all you have is "two long thing things". This class also includes pencils (鉛筆2本が有る)

Oh dear. Let's just get this out of the way first. 1. This is not a proof. As with the rest of your post it is an assertion. 2. In my experience, the only people who shout this are those who are totally unwilling to be proved wrong. 3. There are a number of basic errors in your argument. I have commented on a few of the more obvious ones below. 4. As your post is totally lacking in any formal logic, there is nothing to refute logically. (Including the word "therefore" does not make it a logical argument.) It is very well established that space cannot be described as Euclidean. Therefore the "straight line to infinity" you refer to may not exist. Your reference to an "egg-shell shaped universe" seems to show a profound misunderstanding of modern cosmology. Let me try an analogy: consider the surface of the Earth. It is finite in area. A "straight line" (i.e. a great circle) has a maximum length. Now extend this curved model to three dimensional space and it is possible that space is finite. The important point is that we do not know if space is finite or infinite. And we can probably never now. Your argument does not change that. This is at least partly correct. There is no "inherent" of absolute velocity. However, we can, of course, measure the velocity of an object relative to another object. We do this all the time: the speedometer in your car, the velocity of a cricket ball, the speed of sound. But the only thing that can be measured is speed relative to something else. If you claim we cannot even measure relative speed, then what are we measuring when we measure the speed of something? Velocity does not add linearly. This has just been answered in another thread: Have not been understood by you, certainly. It is a bit much for you to be demanding "Prove me wrong" when you are ignorant of basic physics like this.

I suspect you mean that they are both travelling away from you (for example) at 90% the speed of light, so in your frame of reference they are separating at 180% the speed of light? The thing is, velocity does not add linearly (even though it seems to at everyday speeds). So each object, from its own frame of reference, sees the other moving at about 99.4% the speed of light. Actually, 99.4475138121547% according to this page: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/einvel2.html

Evolution doesn't suggest that such a thing is possible. It is beyond ridiculous for someone to claim it does. There are lots of examples of this. And yet it happens. Some examples (of both changes in chromosome number and new species) here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html That site also has answer to pretty much all these creationist lies. Worth browsing.