Strange

Don't those ideas come mainly from general relativity, not quantum theory?

And even if their only purpose is to be "fun to talk about", is that a bad thing? It might stimulate new ideas or encourage young people to study physics. And who knows what might come out of that...

Sounds like you need a tool which will generate a Fourier transform froma drawing of a waveform (but I am not aware of any such tool!) There is some relevant discussion here: http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/38293/make-a-differentiable-smooth-sawtooth-waveform And about halfway down this page: https://documentation.apple.com/en/logicexpress/instruments/index.html#chapter=A%26section=3%26tasks=true And here: https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/28jdp3/formula_for_a_shited_sine_wavesmoothed_sawtooth/

I don't understand this common rejection of psychosomatic disorders. They are very real.

Or, any one of them could be covered in a bit more detail in a series of thirty 2-hour lectures (and, in most cases, there would still be a lot to learn)

I am not going to "assume" any of these things. Especially as your numbers are significantly different from those produced by experts. As for this: "2) Number of Particles In Whole Universe = Number of Variations in Particle Types × 6.457e79" There are NOT 1079 types of particles. There are 17 currently known (slightly less than double that if you count anti-particles as separate types). How do you know that? This appears to be utterly meaningless, without some further justification.

The same old arrogant evasiveness. Please provide a source for this number. I am fairly sure you have not understood what it is but I can't really explain without the source you are quoting it from. That doesn't explain anything. What do you mean by "the energy in the electrons"? Do you just mean the energy equivalent of the mass? Or their kinetic energy (which you are not taking into account)? Or ...? What is hiding it? How can anything hide it? "As nobody knows the size of the universe, one cannot really talk about the mass of the universe, though one can talk about the mass of the observable universe." "Now, the size of the observable universe is about 14 billion light years, and using the above value of density gives you a mass (dark and luminous matter) of about 3 x 1055 g" (in other words, 3 x 1052 kg) http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/our-solar-system/101-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/general-questions/579-what-is-the-mass-of-the-universe-intermediate So it is pretty clear that the number you are using is for the observable universe. The whole universe must be at least 150 times bigger (i.e. more than 4.5 x 1054 kg, or more than 42 times larger than your figure). And, of course, it might be a hundred time or a billions times larger. Or even infinite.

Or even "unlikely". Against all odds, someone wins the lottery every week. But maybe that is just God moving in mysterious ways.

No we don't.

You are not interested in discussing the points you raised? No surprises there then. I assume you want to just keep repeating the same untrue statements.

Please show us how you got this number. And how you have confirmed it is correct. Also, the number of protons in the observable universe must be changing as the universe expands and our observable horizon increases. How do you know how large the whole universe is? No one else does. Please show me what I should be looking at. OK. You say that you invented a "tuned" value. How did you "tune" it? Or is it just a guess? And then you invented a factor of 18. Can you explain why it is absurd? I think it is absurd to try and be 0.1% accurate about a number which can only be estimate to a factor of 10 at best. That is the anti-matter mystery. Why is there so little of it. Are you going to correct the Wikipedia page, then? Remember you will need to provide a reference (and this forum won't count).

What Newton demonstrated (scientifically) is that white light is made up of a mixture of colours. Obviously early people knew about colour. But where in the Bible does it say that white light can be split into colours? Or that colours can be combined to produce white light? It doesn't: the explanation provided for rainbows is: "magic". How does Greek speculation that light might be particulate show that photons are "sacred"?

Do you think that biological systems operate independently of those forces? All this evidence exists. So you can change your mind now. "DAN shuffling" - very good. So that rules out creationism and God, then.

Clearly not. As we can see in India, for example. Or the USA. Or the UK. Or ... well, pretty much all modern countries.

But all you are doing is presenting the same old creationist lies. You haven't presented any science, just empty assertions. Science is all about evidence. So saying that you want to ignore the evidence is a typical religious anti-scientific approach.

If you don't know physics, why are you claiming to have a theory in physics. If you are good at economics, then you should stick to that and not try and post nonsense pretending to be physics.

Wow. What a mess. Much of it is copied from Wikipedia (including the "[Edit]" links ) and machine translated.

Citation needed. If they were unaware of photons then they were, by definition, ignorant of that. What does atomic theory have to do with the subject? Some ancient Greek philosophers suggested that light consisted of a stream of particles. "Greek scientists from the ancient Pythagorean discipline postulated that every visible object emits a steady stream of particles, while Aristotle concluded that light travels in a manner similar to waves in the ocean." http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/lightandcolor/particleorwave.html I still don't see what any of this has to do with religion...

But it is impossible to calculate an accurate value for the number of protons in the observable universe. You can only get a rough estimate from a rough estimate of the total mass of the observable universe (by looking at the average distribution and sizes of gas and galaxies, for example). Note that Eddington's value was largely numerology so it is surprising he came within a factor of 10 of modern estimates. The reason there is such a wide range is because there is no way of getting an accurate value. Do you really mean the mass of the whole universe? That is currently thought to be at least 150 times the size of the observable universe (and may, of course, be much more than that and maybe infinite). A good explanation of how that figure is derived here: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/07/18/how-big-is-the-entire-universe/ I can't see any reason why the observable universe should be an integer fraction of the entire universe. How do you get from 18 to 6.457e79? (And how do you get such an implausibly precise number?) The electron mass adds less that 0.1% which is hundreds of times smaller than the errors in the estimate for the number of protons, so I think you can ignore it. Why are you dividing by 18? No. There is a minute amount of antimatter in the universe, pretty much zero. Any antimatter that is created will almost immediately be annihilated. Dark matter and dark energy are currently thought to make up about 95% of the universe. But I wouldn't say dark energy was "mass". Dark matter make up about 84% of the mass of the universe.

You are right. I don't know why I thought that - apologies all round!

I don't know why you are confused, he simply quoted the headline (I think that these are often not written by the author of the article, so there is extra scope for poor wrtiting). Do you have any reason to do that (other than covering up the pattern in the data)?

It might be the stress of returning to work. Or the result of overindulgence at the weekend. This page says "There is some evidence that in the Middle East the peak incidence of heart attacks is on Fridays, and in Japan it is during the weekend." but they don't give a source. http://myheart.net/articles/predict-heart-attack/ Here is one paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16080587

You do know why that this, don't you?

Try telling that to someone who lives in an area where tornadoes or typhoons are common. The point is, some processes are imperceptibly slow (paint drying, grass growing) and harmless while others are rapid and destructive (meteorites, tsunami). And, of course, some processes are slow and destructive (tree roots growing through your foundations) while others are fast and nondestructive (sunsets). I think the only possible reaction to this insight is: meh.

Try telling that to someone living in an Earthquake zone!