Severian

Gluons (for the strong interaction) also travel at c.

This is just not true, and it doesn't help your case one bit (it just shows how little science you understand). The second law of thermodynamics is for isolated systems, and humanity did not evolve in isolation from the rest of the world. The entropy of part of a system is allowed to decrease as long as there is enough of an increase in the other parts of the system. So the growth of complexity in humanity if offset by an increase in entropy in some other sector of the world (for example, we eat other complex animals and plants, turning them into significantly less complicated and more disordered waste products).

I can actually, since it is a logical fallacy. In order to be defined as another 'universe' there can be no interaction between our universe and the 'other univese'. If there were, then it would not be a different universe - it would be part of our universe. But if there is no interaction, then nothing in the other universe can ever effect any observables in our own universe, and hence (on a sceintific level at least) the other universe does not exist. (This is the correct application of Occam's razor by the way.)

It's not.

And where are they? Any anti-matter created at the big bang, which magically wandered off to 'be a new universe' someplace else, is still embedded in the same space-time. So where is it? To answer the original question, no there are not 'other universes' made of antimatter.

Firefly all the way for me.

Yes, Lorentz never had any physical principle behind his transformation. It was just an observation of a symmetry in the Maxwell equations which seemed to fix the MM experiment. It took einstein to see the true physics. Nevertheless, E=mc2 is part of the Lorentz transformation, so it wasn't really Einstein's.

I don't think Special Relativity was really that much of a leap. In fact, I think einstein gets a bit too much of the credit. Remember that Maxwell wrote down his theory of electromagnetism in 1864, roughly 50 years before SR, but amazingly Mawell's equations are relativistically invariant. Lorentz noticed this (in 1903 I think, though how it took that long I have no idea) and came up with the Lorentz transformation. So Lorentz transformations (boosts etc) were around before Einstein even came on the scene. Einstein 'only' gave the Lorentz transformation a solid physical base by combining it with the results of the Michelson-Morely experiment.

Well, SCOTUS certainly is, but that aside, no-one is being forced to profess a belief in God. The objection was that anyone who opts out of the pledge would feel excluded, and therefore it should not be done. Well, boo-hoo, can't have anyone feeling excluded, can we? That would be unconstitutional!

They are not pledging allegience to God. They are pledging allegience to the US state.

I am an anti-vegitarian. I don't think people should be forced to eat meat, but I think the dicrimination between eating different sort of living things is a very flawed anthopomorphism. Vegies project their own feelings onto the animal, somehow thinking that the animal would have the same feelings as themselves about being eaten. Does it make sense to only eat living things which don't have a central nervous system? I am also anti evangelical atheists. I especially dislike anyone who tries to base their atheism on science - that really bugs me (but I think this bugs me more from the point of view of a scientist than from the point of view of a Christian).

- You think freedom is worth dieing for.

Just another example of intolerant atheists....

Isn't this a little hypocritical? Why do you have to be in love to get the tax breaks? At the moment, a man and a woman can get married without loving one another just for the taxbreaks, so why not two men? In fact, if they are not even having sex, then the religious right might be more happy with this!

So then you would have shown that [math]{\cal H} = i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}[/math] and [math]p = -i \hbar \nabla[/math] But this is still not the Schrodinger equation - for that you need to show how [math]{\cal H}[/math] and [math]p[/math] are related. Actually, to be more correct, you should derive the SE by writing down the most general Lagranian for a scalar field that you can think of, and use the Euler Lagrange equations.

That isn't the Schrodinger Equation though. That is showing (rather nicely) that the Hamiltonian is the time-evolution operator. You still need to find the form of the Hamiltonian (although you might consider that as trivial).

This is actually a very good question. It was think sort of question that led Einstein to think up GR. You have demonstrated that motion in a gravitational force looks exactly like motion in a non-inertial frame. Einstein went on to postulate that they are the same thing - given the information that you have in the closed system you can't tell whether or not it is gravity or motion. (Einstein used a lift as his non-inertial frame, but it is the same thing.)

Not only was it a pile of illogical crap with badly thought out arguments, it was also badly written. Edit: With regard to the veracity of Dan Brown's sources, remember that this is the same author who had a terrorist stealing anti-matter from CERN by carrying it out in a suitcase....

We can predict the lifetime of the muon in its rest frame using our models of particle physics. Then we can ask what its lifetime in the laboratory (ie. the Earth's rest frame) would be if time dilation were true. Then we can test this prediction with observations and do indeed find it to be correct. This is pretty good evidence for time dilation.