ACG52

Now you're comparing your negative rep with Galileo and the church.

Silly, egotistical, crank nonsense.

I guess you're simply not aware of the concept of scientific evidence and proofs.

There's been no proof or evidence of any kind given. You simply make statements and say that they're proof of whatever point you think your making.

This technology does not exist, AFAIK.

Try here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles

In what language? Again, since you know nothing about physics, you post about semantics.

It doesn't matter. The whole point of the troll is to get you to feed him, so no matter what you say, he feels good. By responding to him, in any manner, you've vindicated his existence.

You should not take TV shows as any kind of source. At best, they'll introduce you to ideas and start you thinking, but they are not to be cited as sources of any kind.

No one is saying your definitions are correct or reasonable. You seem to delight in redefining words and then launching into semanticly twisted posts. It would help your case if you actually knew anything about science and scientific research. Instead, this is turning into the same kind of word salad you served over on Physforum.

But you don't know any probabilities. Your 'far greater' was pulled out of wherever you pull baseless assertions.

Biden's results have already been shown to be incorrect. http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4033

Incorrect. Relativity has been confirmed to an extremely high degree of accuracy. All of it.

You seem to think the laws of physics are something that a bunch of people decided on. The laws of physics are the description and explanation of what happens in the physical world. If a particle does not act as the law of physics says, then the law is wrong. But the correct law will describe how the particle will act.

What makes you think that's possible? Because you can frame the idea? A very wishy-washy cop out. There's quite a bit we know, and to take the 'anything is possible' stance means you have to know nothing.

And yet the equations are time symmetrical. So dealing with the closed system which is the universe, the question is why was entropy lower in the past? BTW, this isn't my idea, this comes from Brian Greene, in The Fabric Of The Cosmos.

A - yes B - yes

Best way to stop a nuclear reaction is to cut the speed of light in half.

What we can say definitively is this: The laws of physics are the same everywhere we have been able to observe, which currently reaches out to 13.7 billion lys, and down to the subatomic level.

The second law of thermodynamics says that from any point in time, entropy increases toward the future. But the law of physics are time invarient, that is, they treat forward and backward in time the same. Therefore this implies that entropy should increase in the direction of the past, as well as the future. And yet, we see that entropy is indeed lower in the past. So the question is, why was entropy lower in the past?

It doesn't 'join' it. It slams into the nucleus with high energy, causing the nucleus to fission, releasing more neutrons and energy.

The laws of physics don't give you a choice about obeying or not. They're not the type of laws passed by governmental bodies.

But when you look at the entire closed system (i.e. the universe) entropy always increases. Locally, entropy might, and does, decrease, but you must consider the entire system.

Since both stretching and new space would appear identical, I don't see how we could distinguish between the two. Besides, both explanations are just metaphors for what's happening. You can pick whichever you're more comfortable with. But I wouldn't think of space as a material which has a maximum stretch limit.

I don't think it does. Thermodynamics tells us that from this point forward in time, entropy should increase. But it also tells us that from this point backwards in time, entropy should have been higher. While entropy always increases, it does so in both time directions, so there's no real reason that entropy was lower in the past.