Strange

There is no problem dealing with the calculations. There are even hypothetical (i.e. nonexistent) particles called tachyons, based upon that mathematics. But the mathematics clearly tells us that (a) no massive object can move at the speed of light and (b) the speed of light is not a valid reference frame.

You seem to think there is some sort of absolute right and wrong on which these "just" decisions could be made. But these are subjective and, to some extent, culturally defined concepts. It is certainly true that countries with good governance and access to education have lower rates of population growth, better standards of living, better health and less conflict. So trying to achieve something close to democracy (democracy itself is not a requirement as examples such as Singapore show) and good levels of education, especially for women, may achieve the goals you wish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_radio I guess you have to be a certain age ...

I don't think we need new physics to address anything discussed in this thread. This is all well understood and tested. There are, of course, plenty of other areas where we do need new physics. So good luck with your ambition! Maybe you will be one of those who helps develop the next new theory.

That is more a question of definitions: i.e. how you define what is intelligent. (It sounds a bit like the old "Chinese Room" argument against AI.) They say they are random because, largely, they are random (i.e. the changes that take place during reproduction or caused by radiation, etc. can happen anywhere). As a result of that, some a beneficial, some are bad and many are neutral. That seems a bit of a non sequitur. I expect some aspects of human thought are random (misfirings of neurons, random quantities of neurotransmitters sloshing about, defective dureons, etc). Some aspects of dreams seem pretty random. But, for most people, their thoughts are pretty well ordered. And sometimes even rational. Genes don't think. They are just complicated molecules that do complicated chemistry. (But not as complicated as a brain.) But DNA does not directly control most of those. It sets up the environment and then, largely, leaves things to run.

A bowl shape will focus the light at a single point. A trough will focus it in a line (which is more practical for extracting the energy).

The point is that it doesn't apply to photons: there is no valid frame of reference for photons (*) so you cannot, even in principle, say what happens from a photon's "point of view". (*) Because you end up dividing by zero.

Good. I hope you will use my requested format then. So, without quoting you in detail ... All you have done is repeat that your objection to "forever and ever" but without saying why. I see nothing wrong with that description of infinity (whether applied to time or space). But thanks for clarifying that you are referring to the temporal aspect, rather than the physical. I'm afraid I still have no idea what you mean by "the single energy" and it being "there and then not there". Energy is not quantised so I don't know what you mean by a "single energy". Also (locally, at least) energy cannot disappear, so I don't know what you mean by "then not there". Do you mean it has disappeared or that it has moved somewhere else? And if you have a "single energy" then it must be finite (in quantity). If it disappears (or moves) then it is no longer present and so was finite in time as well. I suspect you are using several words (finite, energy, point, process, etc) in non-standard ways that mean something specific to you. Without clear (preferably quantitative) definitions of what you intend by these terms I don't see this going very far. Rather than explain anything, you appear to simply repeat the same statements. Anyway, I agree with Mordred: perhaps if you go away and study current theories, you might find out why they are the currently accepted theories. And you might get a clearer idea of how some of the words are used and thereby be able to explain yourself better. Just iterating the same arguments here isn't going to be very productive.

Sorry, but I find it easier to focus on each point, to try and keep the discussion organised. It is easier to see what has and hasn't been answered. I'm afraid you haven't really answered anything. For example: But you haven't explained why you think this is a misuse, or what you think "infinity" means. Or even if you are talking about spatial extent or duration (which could be independent of one another). "Going on forever and ever" seems a perfectly good informal description of infinity to me. Think of the integers as a comparison; there are an infinite number of integers: they go on forever and ever. So can you say what you think is wrong with it? This is a binary option. It can't be slightly infinite. Or more than finite but less than infinite. Or both infinite and finite. I'm sorry but I think the reason you can be adamant (a very unscientific attitude, by the way, you should be looking for evidence that shows you are wrong) is simply that you find your own idea convincing. People always do. That is one reason we have developed the scientific method; to get rid of these sort of personal biases. It clearly makes sense to you, even if you are unable to express it clearly. But, unless your "view of the beginning" can be formalised enough to answer some basic questions (both those we already have answers to and those that are currently unknown) and be tested against observation it probably has little value beyond making sense to you. But maybe making sense to you is all that matters (to you). I'm afraid I don't understand the rest of your post, so I'll say no more.

As far as I know, this is unknown. It probably requires a theory of quantum gravity (causal dynamical triangulation, loop quantum gravity, or something). We may find that space (and time) are just emergent properties of some deeper theory. This is another good paper: "Expanding Space: the Root of all Evil?" http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0380 It gets pretty mathematical, but the introduction is quite readable. This is not "THE" proof; it was just one of the earliest experiments to directly measure time dilation. There are thousands of other experiments that have been performed. All of them are consistent with relativity (note that, in science, nothing is ever proved). And yes, the people on the plane would have experienced less time, just as much as the clocks did. It is not about clocks failing at high speed. I'm not sure what you mean by misuse. In terms of physical extent, infinite would mean "without end" or larger than any distance you can measure. (After all, if you can measure it, then you can just get a longer ruler. Infinity is larger than that.) This assumption may not be realistic. There is no clear definition of energy in general relativity. Energy is frame-dependent and conservation only applies locally. However, as Mordred says, there are models that define the total energy of the universe as zero. This appears to me to be an attempt to justify a "universe from nothing" speculation. I'm not sure what you mean by a cycle here. The universe is still (as far as we can tell) still expanding. In fact the expansion has (relatively recently) started accelerating. Sounsd like we are mid-cycle, if anything! The whole idea of the the universe being created is (currently) pretty much speculation with no real evidence. If by "pinpoint" you mean "singularity", then there is no evidence that this "mathematical anomaly" represents a physically real "thing". If by dying, you mean "no longer being a singularity" then, yes; the universe is not a singularity. Do you mean in spatial extent? (Or in time?) I'm not sure how it can be neither (and your last paragraph doesn't make it any clearer, to me). Either it has a size which could, in principle, be measured or it doesn't. But you seem to have your own definition of infinity. Maybe you need to explain what the word means to you. However, the generally accepted model is that the universe may be finite but if it is, it is "unbounded" (i.e. has no boundary or edge/end). Maybe that is closer to what you mean?

To expand on what I said above, if you try and apply the formulas for converting from one frame to another, you end dividing by zero. The reason is that the Lorentz factor is defined as [latex]\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}[/latex]. If you make v = c, then you have [latex]\gamma = \frac{1}{0}[/latex].

No, the whole point is that it isn't a valid reference frame.

It doesn't make any difference whether you consider light as a wave or a photon; they both travel at the speed of light. This cannot be a frame of reference because treating as such causes division by zero and the sort of contradiction you mention (how can light travel at the speed of light relative to light).

If there were a universal frame of reference then any object's velocity (and position) could be defined with reference to that frame of reference. How do you compare either your velocity or position to "light" (the universal frame of reference)? Your speed "relative to light" would always be c (in as much as the concept means anything). But the same is true of every other object in the universe, regardless of their state of motion relative to you. Therefore, you cannot treat light (or the speed of light) as a reference. Unless you assume that all motion is an illusion, or some other weird psychological/philosophical excuse. Also, if light was moving relative to some universal/absolute frame of reference, then we would measure its speed differently depending on our state of motion relative to that universal frame. And that isn't what we observe.

There is a standard definition of the second (in terms of physical effects). The millisecond is just one thousandth of that.

I'm not sure what this means. Can you provide a link to where you heard this. Not all "vibrations" are necessarily related to movements in space. For example, electromagnetic radiation has a frequency (e.g. radio, light, etc) but that is an oscillation of the electric and magnetic fields not a physical vibration of anything in space. Are you referring to homogeneous coordinates? Although these use 4 dimensional matrices, they are still representing 3D space. Of course, you can write a program representing space with as many dimesions as you like.... I am not aware of any particles that exist in 4 (or more) dimensional space (other than some speculative theories like Kaluza–Klein theory or string theory).

I made no assumptions, grand or otherwise, and have no theory, so I have no idea what you are talking about. I was simply stating the facts (as currently understood). The density of dark matter is very low; it would appear as a near vacuum if we could detect it directly. Therefore there is a significant space between the particles of dark matter - more than there is between the molecules in the atmosphere, for example. So I don't see how you think this supports a hypothesis that there is no empty space: there is a lot of empty space between air molecules and even more between dark matter particles. Unless by "empty space" you mean a large volume of space with no contents. In which case, you are right: all of space is pervaded by photons, neutrinos, dark matter, low levels of interstellar/intergalactic medium, virtual particles, etc. But between all these is ... empty space.

When natural language is vague and ambiguous, math comes to the rescue and fills in the missing details.

The average density of dark matter is very low. Between the particles of dark matter is an awful lot of empty space.

I thought that the holographic universe was an extrapolation from the fact that the entropy (crudely, information content) of a black hole is proportional to its area, rather its volume. I think someone just thought, "what if the same is true of the universe!"

You may be thinking if the Michelson-Morley experiment. This, and a number of similar experiments, failed to find any evidence for the existence of a hypothetical "aether" that supposedly formed the medium for the propagation of light. However, as Maxwell's equations made clear, that was pretty much the expected result. I don't know if that has anything to do with the notion of empty space. It depends on your definitions of "empty" and "space".

For the Egyptians, as with most societies, geometry (and mathematics in general) wasn't an abstract subject. It was deeply practical. They had a civilization, therefore they needed to survey land, divide fields for agriculture, calculate how to get water to the fields, design buildings, build ships, ....

OK so far... And ... no. Obviously, if we change the experiment we get a different result. And that requires us to use our minds. But I don't think that is what you meant. Perhaps the abyss being so deep is the reason we have zero evidence for psychic powers. Or the criminals would be so clever, they would be unstoppable? Ah, the John Lennon approach to solving the world's problems. I would prefer people apply themselves to something more practical.

What do you mean by "a form you run once a month"? Is this where you tell the bank how much to debit from each client? Or...? I'm not sure what you are doing.

Ask your bank. (It will be your bank that is debiting their accounts, not you.)