Strange

I wasn't aware of that. Can you provide a reference describing it?

So you are asking if a non-existent model makes sense? Is a non-existent cake delicious?

But you are saying that the "next universe" is created from a single isolated particle. How do you get enough energy to create a whole universe from that? Thermodynamic entropy increases. How do you define that for a single particle? Are you just ignoring the various conservation laws? But it doesn't magically create mass or energy from nothing.

Does the center of mass move?

Hard to say without seeing the model ...

The paper describing this idea is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.0989

That has nothing to do with viscosity. Syrup has a higher viscosity than water but you can mix them. The air is a fluid and so it has viscosity. No.

Because we don't have any theories that apply under those conditions. You can just naively follow the extrapolation and get to zero size (a singularity) but there is no reason to think that is physically meaningful. You are suggesting that this meaningless extrapolation should be taken as seriously as highly detailed models that produce quantitative, testable results. Fair enough. Not really. You know the mass of an electron. You know the mass of the Earth. How could the latter be created from the former? As they currently have working theories and more than enough scientific ideas to look into, I'm not sure why they would bother. That all seems pretty standard stuff. Although the idea of a "big rip" is still pretty much hypothetical. I see no paradox. You are comparing the entropy of different things. You may also be comparing different definitions of entropy. (Without the maths, it isn't clear.) Speculation with no maths and no evidence? What reason is there to consider it, never mind consider it to be correct? Not wrong but incomplete.

This is true (in QFT) for all particles. Electrons are just a quantisation of the electron field. Photons are a quantisation of the electromagnetic field. Etc.

I see what you mean. I tend to think of velocities as non-linear so that 0.999c is much faster than 0.99c but ,really, they are almost the same.

Right. But it is still faster than the OP's claimed limit of 99.99% c.

Almost certainly not true. So let's stick with what we know: the universe started in a hot dense state. I suppose. If you redefine the word universe.... And this is the energy of a single particle. An electron, for example. That is going to make a very tiny universe, even if you had a mechanism to do that. Well, you haven't done the maths yet to show that your idea is plausible.

What periodic movement of the electron are you referring to?

This classical Bhor model of the atom with electrons orbiting the nucleus is not really accurate. It does give correct results for some specific things but is in general not accurate. The quantum mechanical model is that an electrons is not orbiting the nucleus but is "spread out" around the atom with a defined probability if being found in any given position. http://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/properties/orbitsorbitals.html

As you can see lightning and hear the radio interference they cause, they obviously generate a wide range of electromagnetic radiation. Even gamma rays. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/jul/10/japanese-team-sees-gamma-ray-pulse-before-lightning-flash

OK. Your claim that they were standing waves was the only thing I was correcting. (Your OP is utterly incomprehensible so I have nothing else to say.)

So what. That is a problem of philosophy (or religion) not physics. Irrelevant. Why should light behave as you think it should. The universe doesn't care about you expectations. As light clearly does exist, there is obviously something wrong your conclusion. No. You don;t understand. The theory does not allow us to to calculate what would be measured by something moving at the speed of light (which is fine, because no material object capable of measuring can do that). It obviously says nothing about what we measure. We can measure properties of light. Including its speed. No, let's not. Why not stick to science instead of fairy tales. As your errors have been explained repeatedly, I wonder why you keep on making the same foolish errors.? Do you have an alternative theory to present, or are you just going to keep making false statements about existing theory?

I'm not sure what the difference is. "At this energy the protons have a Lorentz factor of about 7,500 and move at about 0.999999991 c," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider They are just different descriptions of the same thing. If you detect one then you detect the other. (And we can detect individual photons, so this appears to be just another false statement.)

And yet, I can see the world around me quite well. This is not your theory, this is your baseless speculation. Of course the explanations of light are theories. What would you expect? That is what science does: create theories and test them. Please provided some evidence to support his assertion. Or stop making stuff up. We regularly accelerate things to far higher velocities than this. The time dilation effects are exactly as predicted by relativity. And yet we measure photons all the time. Why do keep saying things that are so obviously untrue?

In which case you are redefining "standing wave", which makes the discussion pointless. To me, cheese is a mixture of basalt and feldspar so it is clear that the moon really is made of cheese.

So I assume you have no interest in science at all? Do you have anything positive to contribute? Or are you just going to post the same displays of ignorance over and over again? Science can only work with what we can observe. If you want a discussion on whether photons "really" exist (whatever that means) then you need a philosophy forum, not physics.

Standing waves require mechanical or electromagnetic waves to be propagated in a cavity whose size is an integer multiple of the wavelength. There is not one part of that definition which applies to the neurological activity of the brain. The "waves" are patterns of synchronised neural chemical activity. The reason for patterns of activity are due to feedback between groups of neurons. The frequencies are determined by the rate at which neurons react and the connectivity between them (and nothing to do with the size/shape of the skull). So a classic example of a natural oscialltor and nothing to do with standing waves.

Nice use of the word "reverberations" I noticed that on another forum, when the members pointed out all the flaws you just walked away. It seems you don't have much confidence in the idea.

Hellooo! Engineer here. *waves* (Still not seeing any value...) Are you, perhaps, thinking of something like a geodesic dome However, this fullerene molecule would be a lot less simple, and a lot harder to understand if the faces were split into triangles: Although it does have sort-of "anti-triangles"; three edges at each vertex.

Man, that must be a real pain.