Strange

Two points. First, the big bang theory doesn't extend all the way back to time 0; our understanding of physics breaks down before then. But, for the math you mention, you need to use the concept of "limits" to find out what happens when the volume is zero because, as you say, you can't divide by zero. Limits are usually covered in introductory calculus class, I think but you can get an informal idea by just considering what happens as the volume approaches zero: the density increases ... without limit. By making the volume smaller, you can make the density as large as you like. The fact that this eventually ends up dividing by zero is pretty much what "singularity" means: a place where the math is undefined.

Why do GPS receivers go to all the trouble of using the complex math of GR if it isn't necessary? I'm sure the designers would love to use cheaper processors and/or get a faster result by using your simple arithmetic. If it worked.

That is a little more complex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Classical_wave-optics_formulation

[math]f = \frac{z \lambda}{d}[/math] Where: [math]f[/math] is the separation of the fringes [math]z[/math] is the distance from the slits to the screen [math]\lambda[/math] is the wavelength of the light [math]d[/math] is the distance between the slits. It is a sine wave.

No it doesn't. The interference pattern depends on the wavelength and the distance between the slits. In the classical version of the experiment, the wave is a sinewave. In the photon version ... well that doesn't make sense. There is no wave, just photons (Or electrons, or atoms, or buckyballs).

As several people have already pointed out the errors and/or asked the OP for some more explanation (after all, simply posting some wrong data is not really a compelling argument) I see nothing wrong with a little light-hearted banter. If you think we should all be deadly serious all the time, even in the face of something as silly as the OP, then this would be a very dull place. I'm curious why you are defending something so obviously wrong as the OP's "paper". It's not as if he is presenting something which there could be some doubt or debate about. It is just wrong. There isn't much more to say. Except, perhaps, to understand why the OP has such a gross misunderstanding and thereby help him come to terms with how SR really works.

I suspect they were intended to be humorous rather than deeply meaningful. YMMV.

I think you are wasting your time trying to visualise a photon. You might as well, for the purposes of this experiment, think of it as a little fuzzy ball. After all, the same experiment can be done with reasonably macroscopic objects (I think a C60, buckyball, might be the largest) with the same results. The resulting pattern reflects the probability of photons reaching various points on the screen. This can be calculated mathematically, and this precisely matches the results. If you want to try and visualise the photon as a wave going through both slits, then there will be other experiments that make that meaningless. If you think of it as a particle, then there are other experiments that contradict that. So what is it? It's a photon. It does what photons do.

For work that doesn't even meet the standards of vixra. (Wait, vixra has standards now?)

Agreed. Science doesn't do "proof". I don't really understand this. I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to make. There is only one sort of science I am aware of, that is the use of objective, repeatable data to build testable models of the world around us. I guess, if you are of a religious or philosophical nature, you could say God created that. <shrug> But it doesn't require "faith" to think that science works. Just a quick look at the practical results will do. Engineering can be described as "applied science". Most early scientists and many modern ones are inspired in their work by wanting to better understand their god(s)'s creation. So, I think ajb has addresses this (I noticed after I started writing). But... Firstly, conservation of energy and the laws of thermodynamics only apply locally (to closed systems). So we can't say anything about the energy of the whole universe; it just isn't well defined. Secondly, the big bang theory doesn't say anything about the creation of the universe. It is a description of the apparent evolution of the universe from an earlier hot dense state. There is all sorts of speculation about what might have happened at the very earliest times but no one really knows. "God did it" is probably as good as any other idea right now. a) That isn't true. b) It isn't really relevant. The theory of evolution doesn't depend on the fossil record. Fossils are useful for telling us some of the details of the history of evolution, which is interesting. And can usefully be used to test the theory (it passes, by the way). But given a few basics like: 1. Variation within a population = an observed fact 2. Those variations being inherited (to some extent) = an observed fact 3. Those variations also affecting survival/reproduction success = an observed fact Then evolution is kind of inevitable. It would take divine intervention to stop it happening! There are only transitional species. Everything is in transition from an earlier form to a later one. I'm afraid that your comments on the fossil record appear to be based on a lack of knowledge and some misinformation. I'm sure someone here can provide some good resources to learn more. This might be a useful starting point: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

As far as I can tell from your rambling presentation, you have never explained why one clock should be running slower than another. But not because GR doesn't work or is inaccurate. Just for all the normal and well-understood reasons of engineering tolerance, drift, temperature effects, etc.

Unknown. Maybe it was always there. Apparently. And it is still continuing. (In my mind, "big bang" refers to the theory of the evolution of the universe from an earlier hot, dense state. Not some sort of "explosion" or creation event.) Personally, I doubt it. But who knows. No one knows. You will find lots of hypotheses. Lost of speculation. Lots of pseudoscience. And a sprinkling of religion. But the only scientific answer is: currently unknown.

How does a table full of incorrect values prove anything? I note that you don't include atomic clocks, which have been used in multiple tests and practical applications of relativity because of their accuracy. You don't explain why you have caclulated the wrong values for most rows, so it is hard to know how to comment further. GPS?

Not really, no. You can continue to wind the model back and, not surprisingly, it will take you to these infinities. As with the singularities in the center of a black hole, this seems more likely to indicate that we are taking the relevant theory beyond its domain. A theory of quantum gravity, for example, might give a different answer. I doubt many people think a point of infinite density represents a physical reality.

somehow passes muster as reasoned discourse. It is not. It is every bit as foolish and fanatical as - and a good deal more sinister than - the OP link. They are equally whack (both off by about the same number of obviously and seriously injured/uninjured people, for example) but unequally disrespected. How can they both be off by the same number? You claim that the number of people killed by radiation was not zero. Can you provide a reference to support that? Because I have heard of no radiation-related deaths so far.

There is no "alleged start of time". There is all sorts of speculation about what might have happened in the early universe: a quantum fluctuation, a "big bounce", God, Hawking, a black hole forming in another universe, etc. etc. Currently, they all seem to have roughly equal standing as science (i.e. not much).

Note that if the universe was largely antimatter, rather than matter, then we would call that matter (and what we currently call matter would be antimatter).

Visual Studio Express is free and supports Visual Basic (as far as I can tell) http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/eng/products/visual-studio-express-for-windows-desktop#product-express-desktop However, there are better languages than Basic to use.... Sorry, just noticed that others have said the same.

The thing is, the output might need to be adjusted depending on context. For example: "Saw the new car BTW" => "Saw the new car by the way" But: "BTW saw the new car" => "By the way saw the new car" So you might need to see if the phrase comes at the start of a line or after a full stop to decide whether to capitalise it or not. Or, just convert everything to lower case, as you seem happy with that.

Absolutely. I have used Perl to process files containing hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of lines of data. (It can begin to get a bit slow at that point!) BTW. I'm still not quite sure what you want to do. There are (at least) three things that you might want such a program to do: 1. Read a data file containing pairs such as: "BTW=by the way" and so on. This is trivial in Perl. You can read the file in a loop, split each line on the delimiter (=) using the built-in function and then store the meaning ("by the way") in a hash table indexed by the abbreviation. That is a few lines of code. 2. Read some text, replace any abbreviations with the expanded meaning, and print out the result. Also very simple. You would have to do a few things like checking if "by the way" should start with a capital letter or not. (Although, based on your posts here, you might not care about that. ) 3. Do 2 the other way round; i.e. replacing "by the way" with "BTW" Again, very simple. But you would probably want to store all the data in two hash tables: one to go each way.

Perl is pretty efficient (it is semi-compiled) and hash tables are efficient by definition. I doubt you would have performance problems unless you have millions of words in your dictionary.

If this is quite a small scale thing, I would look at Perl. It has really good built in functions for string handling and pattern-recognition. It can also store data in hash tables; i.e. just like an array but indexed by a string: $lookup_table{"BTW"} = "by the way"; Because it is an interpreted language it is much simpler to experiment and try things out. The code will not be as fast as writing in C or Java, but that would only matter if your were dealing with very large numbers of words.

And maybe osmosis causing cells to rupture releasing chemicals that stimulate the pain nerves. (Or something. IANAB )

No it can't. It is limited by the wavelength of the light (or whatever) used to generate the image.

Unless you find subtraction harder than addition.