For those not wishing to read all of Saltpetre's post, here's the TL;DR.

"The universe is mysterious, therefore, god."

There will be any number of posters better qualified to answer your questions, Saltpetre… I find the whole wave and particle aspect of light mysterious. But this is how I was told to think about it:

Just think of light as always emanating at a constant speed and wavelength – a bit like looking at an ocean with all the waves the same height and spacing.

Now adjust your point of view – it is you the observer who is moving towards or away from the source of the waves. If you're moving towards the source (of the light) you hit the top of the evenly spaced waves at a higher frequency. If you're moving away from the source (of the light) you hit the tops of the evenly spaced waves at a lower frequency.

In all circumstances the speed of the waves is constant. Even though it doesn't seem that way to you.

Doesn't stop it being a source of wonder and beauty, though.

Gravity too can be a very weighty subject – but every time you stand up you overcome the gravitational force of the entire earth. But if you step off a cliff the earth will win.

Maybe one of the OLO mathematicians could help with some analogies about quantum physics and the fabric of space and time?

Chrisdbarry, I've always found Saltpetre more nuanced than you seem to be implying – and always open to answers to questions he poses – enquiring rather than proselytising.

WmTrevor,

Thank you for your considerate and informative response.

chrisdbarry,

Perhaps there are 'more things in heaven and earth'? I most certainly don't have anywhere near all the answers - quite the contrary. Room for questioning remains, for inquiry, revision and evolution of thought and knowledge, in the continuing quest for ultimate truth in all things.

Albert Einstein, a very clear thinker, appears to have postulated that the future welfare of humankind lies in understanding and in respect for all life (my gist of various quotes). I can't argue with that, and Albert did a lot to understand. The quest continues, and for the intuitive mind there's more to life than mere existence.

I've been reading up a bit n this stuff lately - and fascinating it is too.

This is how Brian Greene explains the relativity of space and time:

"....From the well-worn statement that the speed of light is constant, we conclude that "space and time are in the eye f the beholder". Each of us carries our own clock, our own monitor of the passage of time. Each clock is equally precise, yet when we move relative to one another, these clocks do not agree. They fall out of synchronicity, they measure different amounts of elapsed time between two chosen events. The same is true of distance. Each of us carries our own yardstick, our own monitor of distance in space. Each yardstick is equally precise, yet when we move relative to one another, these yardsticks do not agree; they measure different distances between the locations of two specified events. If space and time did not behave this way, the speed of light would not be constant: space and time do behave this way. Space and time adjust themselves in an exactly compensating manner so that observations of light's speed yield the same result, regardless of the observer's velocity....When you look at something like a parked car, which from your point of view is stationary - not moving through space, that is - all of its motion is through time. the car, its driver, the street, you, your clothes are all moving through time in perfect synch....But if the car speeds away, some of its motion though time is diverted into motion though space...the speed of the car through time slows down when it diverts me of its motion through time to motion through space..."

and

"...moving at light speed through space leaves no motion for travelling through time! Time stops when travelling at the speed of light through space..."

WmTrevor, I was probably too quick to dismiss and the time and effort you took to explain was admirable.

Saltpetre, can you explain your final statement please: "The quest continues, and for the intuitive mind there's more to life than mere existence." I want to be clear in your meaning rather than assume.

Ben98, apologies for that snide remark originally- that was out of line.

So far as I can tell, the festival is being run by a committee supported by six different organisations! Do you know which of those 6 organisations is actually paying for the festival and where those 6 organisations are getting their cash from? If not, it's unfair for you to be going on about war chests, is it not? It's a little presumptous of you to talk about the church backing the event with it's "huge war chest of funds".

Besides, my point was to invite people along. Instead of paying $400 or whatever it was to hear some atheists preaching to the choir, why not watch some engaging discussions with various viewpoints?

And yes, my basis for claiming that it was a money making exercise was the cost involved. If not for the organisations running it then most definitely for the authors themselves. I wonder how many books Sam Harris and Dawkins sold?

(To be continued)