Strange

A bark is referring to a dogs bark, and when a human produces a sound in word form, it does not magically make the sound the same as the mind, where mind-related processes take place.

Ferdinand de Saussure said this (and said it much more clearly) over 100 years ago.

 

Therefore, when you process the word in mind, you are processing a sound, and it is not equal to intelligence (which is related to the minds capacity).

Nonsense. When you hear or read the sound, your mind associates it with the concept.

 

I'm suggesting you haven't ever comprehended anything

And you have? Apart from the staggering arrogance of this insult, it doesn't follow from your previous statements.

Everyone can use their mind. It is not clear that having ability with language is anything to do with thought so your incoherent use of words is both ironic and irrelevant.

You really should learn something about language and/or the way the mind works.

then you are not 'collecting stamps', a style of collecting stamps in this context.

How can not doing something be a style of doing something? That makes no sense. Is not playing football a sport?

 

why is science intelligent? (or why is it correct?)

Science isn't intelligent or correct.

It is a methodology for gathering and testing knowledge. Why do we continue to do it? Because it works. It produces practical and useful results (like your computer and Internet connection).

There are no holes in the theory of relativity. (This does not mean it is 100% correct or complete, of course. But we haven't yet found out anywhere it is incorrect.)

What I wanna know is, how the hell did the singularity form?

It is not clear that there was ever a singularity as a "thing". But, either way, we don't know anything about how the earliest universe came about: whether it was created, collapsed from some earlier universe, or any of the other speculative ideas.

The big bang is a theory for our universe (milky way), there is be more than one. More than likely a super massive star that collapsed and turned into that massive black hole in the centre of the milky way. And any explosion would push everything out so it would seem we are expanding, into space that was already there.

That model does not match what we observe.

 

universe may be expanding but the space it is in is not.

Another claim that appears to contradict (well-tested) theory and the evidence.

Do you have anything other than assertions? Maybe this should be moved to philosophy.

Space has no time. only the physical objects within the space seem to age. space does not age, it just changes. It has always been there, and always will be. Thats the thing humans will never be able to comprehend, there is no creator, because you cant create something that has no beginning or end, just like it has no boundaries, it will be endless.

There's an awful lot of claims there with no support.

So we are still expanding but we are no longer having anything emitted from the singularity? We are a bigger singularity? I know that second sentence doesn't use singularity in the proper context but that is the best way I can ask that question.

Nothing was "emitted" from a singularity. It seems unlikely that the singularity was a "thing". But the second sentence is more accurate; the universe is still expanding from some small hot dense state (which would be true even if the singularity is an accurate physical description). So everywhere in the universe was once much closer together.

The Big Bang was essentially an explosion, It happened. We may still be experince the "after shocks" but it isn't still happening

No it wasn't. And yes it is.

Yes, cells are made of atoms. The atoms are in all the molecules that make up the chemistry of the cell: water, fats, proteins, carbohydrates, enzymes, DNA, etc. All are chemical compounds made of atoms. The structures of the cell (membranes, protoplasm, nucleus, organelles, etc.) are all made of these chemicicals and so are made of atoms. The cell is alve because of the biochemical processes going on between these molecules and atoms.

As to how life began, this is not known with any certainty yet. But there are some very good hypotheses, based on various lines of eveidence. It isn't an area I know a lot about so maybe someone else can provide more info.

Could be, but I am not fully sure. It can have non-locality properties (like in EPR). But the particle postion can be (average) calculated between source and absorption with the speed of light. So that property has locality.

You can consider that the photon went in a straight line (or a series of straight lines, in the case of diffraction) from the source to where you detect it. But ... for QED to calculate the probability of that path, it has to take into account everything the photon could have encountered (i.e. non-local effects). Also, if you try and test whether the photon really did take the path you assume, then you change the outcome of the experiment (by forcing it to be localized).

If the wave is there exactly at the moment the photon is emitted, and is gone (collapsed) when the photon is absorbed, then the wave has non-locality. The wave is everywhere at once, also at large distances, so faster then light.

Probably more accurate to say the photon has non-locality. (But yes.)

The electrode potential of zinc and iron are different (perhaps you have heard of galvanised iron?).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrode_potential

Pioneer 10 and 11 were sent to get a fix on the Brown Dwarf Star

Citation needed.

like this ?

 

http://api.ning.com/files/lGrI3XHrcXkwT4TfQodgHn3AWxGqb7KFVMp7k51FrbbKRmdEZ7BMJ8OzZnvGqIjcwVOrxiA3BhqsmDZ9BijPhRtkPSUwspgN/tworx372.gif

I don't know where that image came from, what it is supposed to show or how it is relevant.

What is the answer to my question?

 

Is this supposed to be like seeing an airplane way up in the sky but it's really an insect in the air a few feet above you? We're making a depth perception error, is that right?

Yes

Would you agree that if you looked at that airplane/insect from two different places then you would be able to work out how far away it really was (and therefore which it was)?

And that is?

QED. (Sorry, I thought that had been referenced here before.)

That is how diffraction is explained.

That is how diffraction is modelled.

 

After this discussion I suppose that QM does not know, or better does not try to know.

QM uses a completely different model. Which, nicely, comes up with the same answers.

then the conclusion is that a photon is/has a wave which on large distances (in extreme: in the whole universe) is a wave with constant amplitude.

And that is yet another problem with the "the photon goes through both slits" interpretation. Like most interpretations/analogies it doesn't make too much sense when you examine it too closely.

Isn't the 'great person' vs. zeitgeist argument a philosophical one?

Well, it is certainly unevidenced (in this thread) so it might as well be.

 

And is that really the main topic. I'm really asking because the OP doesn't help much in that regard.

I'm not sure that there was any topic, other than him introducing himself. (As someone I would not give a job to.)

The formule of QM waves does not include diffraction.

No, but like many things it uses a different route to get the same result. (Rather like GR doesn't treat gravity as a force but Newton does.)

Either way, there is no need for a medium.

Note that the mathematics associated with Huygens' principle does not include any parameters relating to the medium. So even if he conceived of it happening in a medium, he did not need to take that medium into account.

It is almost as if the medium isn't there.

 

But surely if vacuum is NOT empty it must be a medium of some sort or another, unless you are saying that E-M waves ( photons) have absolutely NO interaction with any of these fields, particles , bits and pieces. ?

There is a difference between a "medium" that photons may or may not interact with and a medium that is required for the transmission of EM waves (i.e. the classical aether). There is absolutely no evidence, and no theoretical need, for the latter.

Is the Bermuda triangle a vortex in the earth's magnetic field?

No, just a series of fairy tales.

Thus there is unlikely to be any synchronous jump just as the previous photon has fled. It is more likely to be a flurry of separate photons unconnected with each other.

My understanding is that this is normally true. But do the photons produced by a laser have coherent phase?

for example, the Human Genome Project .... But they are the culmination of the thoughts of lone scientists.

Crick & Watson (and the rest of the team)?

Gaia? Barely a hypothesis. I can't work out if it is trivially true (the Earth will always reach some sort of "balance"; life will evolve to fit changing conditions, etc.) or metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.

I can't see how anyone could describe it as a "major historic breakthrough".