Strange

Ah bless. So can you show us how well your predictions match observation or not?

I forget, how many times do you have to repeat this before it becomes relevant? Still not true. Repeating doesn't make it any more true. Well, duh. If there was no interaction of anything with anything, then it is probably unlikely that light could be produced.

Perhaps you could show that the predictions of your (vanity-published, unreviewed) "paper" quantitatively match the observation. A claim that "I said it would be brighter" is about as useful as a chocolate teacup. (Even if it weren't from someone with your record.)

There are various hypotheses along those lines but no one has been able to produce a working model (as far as I know). And there is no evidence for any such sub-particles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preon If you want to believe in things with no evidence, that is fine. But it is nothing to do with science.

It is still true. Why do you need a new explanation when the old one works fine. The mass is converted to energy. (The "gravity ability" doesn't change.) What they have in common is mass-energy. A couple of centuries ago, these were thought to be the same thing, but now we know better. Interacting with anti-matter isn't that tough, it happens all the time. It is widely used in technology. Also, it isn't the only way to convert mass into energy; fusion and fission both do it. And are very, very common. That is wrong: (+1) – (-1) = 2.

Or, at least it would be very out of focus (or just not able to resolve objects of that size).

Just insisting that it is wrong, while providing no evidence to support that (and ignoring all the other evidence) is not "questioning it".

There isn't really a simple answer to this (or I have never seen one). The thing is that quantum theory predicts probabilities for outcomes that are different from your envelope example. This is one of the best simple explanations I have seen: http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm

No it isn't.

Shouldn't you start by seeing if there is any evidence for "reinstantiation" before worrying about the details?

Just saying that doesn't help. You need to show that classical theory can reproduce all the same results as quantum theory (i.e. that the predictions of classical theory matches reality). You can insist on whatever you want. Without evidence, no one is going to take you seriously.

Of course they are not the same. But one can be converted into the other (by various processes). The explanation is that they are equivalent and one can be converted into the other (by various processes). I'm not sure what sort of explanation you are looking for. In the end, some things can only be explained by "that's the way the universe is". The mass is converted to energy. The net charge is the same before and after (usually zero). For example, an electron (negative) and positron (positive) can be converted to two photons (zero charge = +1 + -1). Note that two photons are required to conserve spin, angular momentum, etc. Because photons are required to travel at the speed of light. (Note that they go in opposite directions so the net momentum is conserved.)

But you reject the interpretation. Ah. Bless. No one is denying classical theories where they are appropriate. As you are not able to show that classical theories can explain the photoelectric effect, black body spectrum, the nature of electron orbitals, entanglement, etc. etc. I think we can simply ignore your wishes.

If you watch the Feynman lectures on QED, he explains how you have to consider that the photon might have gone in every possible direction (and even at different speeds) with an appropriate probability. When you sum (integrate) all these paths you get to the result that ... the photon appears to travel in a straight line! http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

It certainly means I cannot explain. But I am quite sure there are people here who can. Which is why I suggest you ask in the appropriate section of the forum (in the unlikely event that you are interested in learning).

You are mixing up a couple of different things here. When light is scattered in the air, it travels in straight lines between the atoms that it is scattered by. Also, your torch (flashlight) shines light in a cone, so the light from that spreads out even though it travels in straight lines. It would be much, much less than 10% of your light that reaches the moon. In the lunar laser-ranging experiments, they shine a laser at reflectors on the surface of the moon (left by the Apollo mission). Out of gazllions of photons from the laser, they typically detect 5 reflected back to Earth. Note that in quantum theory, we can't actually say anything about what photons do in the time before we detect them. (In QED, for example, you have to take every possible path into account.) But they always appear to have travelled in a straight line.

Maybe you should post a question in the physics section of the forum if you are interested in learning something about physics.

You mean you don't understand the theory that you claim is wrong? How can you say it is wrong, if you don't understand it?

Not true. This is yet another bit of evidence for the quantum model that you are simply dismissing because it contradicts your personal belief.

Cold dark matter means that the dark matter particles move relatively slowly (i.e. it rules out neutrinos). No.

I don't think that is possible.

Having a variety of different immune responses in a population is a good thing, as it spreads the ability of the population to fight off disease (assuming you can't have every individual able with immunity to every possible pathogen). Blood groups are one result of this. More detail here: http://web.udl.es/usuaris/e4650869/docencia/GenClin/content/recursos_classe_%28pdf%29/revisionsPDF/MHCcomplex.pdf http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/9/1269.full

Why are you confused? Mass and energy are equivalent.

Are you referring to the set-theoretical definition of the natural numbers? Or the Peano axioms? Not all mathematics can be defined in terms of integer addition.

No you don't. You might have a future in comedy. They do say that repetition can make anything funny. It isn't.