Strange

When sober, for example. Well put. This also captures why it is not a belief but an absence.

In what was is "God" an explanation for anything? It is just a cop out. It is giving up. You are saying, "we don't currently know the answer so I am going to give up and just say GodDidIt. Problem solved." Except, problem not solved. All you have done is substitute a non-existent entity for "we don't know" and dropped the "but we are damn well going to find out". That is why primitive superstition never lead to technological progress.

There have been. I'm sure there still are some. For example, because so many people who are give anaesthetics have "out of body" experiences, there was a surgeon who put some objects on top of shelves in the operating room so they are not normally visible. The idea was to see if any of the people who said that they had such an experience could say what was on the shelf. (None have, as far as I know.) So, although out-of-body experiences are a well-attested fact and are thought to have a perfectly normal physical explanation, it is worth testing. Not quite (and sorry, I was in a hurry earlier and didn't have time to write more). It means we can (in science) only draw conclusions on what we can observe and measure. So however reasonable and convincing our conclusions are at any time we can never rule out new evidence, a "black swan". But until we get that new evidence, we can only use the evidence we currently have.

There are some good online courses where you could learn a little basic science. Then you will be able to see that your post is just nonsense.

Can "God" explain that?

Don't post drunk. (Actually, I would recommend you don't post sober, either.)

No it isn't. Not in any sense of the word. School.

Usually? Based on a sample size of 1. I think we can ignore that, then. Sceptical? Yes, in a good sense. I.e. not gullible and willing to accept things just because someone says so. Nihilistic? No. Why should they be. OF course it isn't. That is as stupid as saying that silence is a song.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of examples where we can recreate what was "lost" without reversing time. Some chemical reactions are reversible. We can dissolve crystals and then regrow them. Melting and freezing. Boiling and condensing. And the idea of Hawking radiation came out of looking to see if the same was true of the information that entered black holes.

And got meaningless answers. Because the question is basically meaningless. Which is best: - Jupiter - Blue - Peanut butter - Acceleration - 5 Kg

I don't believe you.

Atheism is not a belief or a religion, just like not being interested in golf is not a sport.

There is no evidence for such. It does in science.

Yes. F = ma. The expansion of the universe involves no forces so will not change your acceleration. Apart from which it would be undetectably small on the scale of you and your space-ship.

As instruments so which can measure changes smaller than the size of a hydrogen atom have failed to detect gravitational waves yet, it seems unlikely that they are regularly detected in a lump of wet jelly. Just moving around will create bigger vibrations in your brain than gravitational waves ever will. Also, if this were the cause then everyone would experience them at the same time. But: congratulations for saying gravitational rather than gravity waves. And Wrong. Then, I'm afraid, there is no reason for anyone to take it seriously.

I thought that might be what you were doing. But you start off with one of the factors known (x=14251) so all you have to do is N/x. Which makes all your work pointless. Can you use your formula to find the (approximate) prime factors of 141620173 ? Sorry, I can't watch videos. And I wouldn't if I could as they are a ridiculous form of communication.

They seem to be pretty common: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2011/30/full/ Remember that elliptical galaxies are the result of collions and make up about 10% of the galaxies we see. So your guess is several orders of magnitude out. Expansion isn't relevant because it doesn't happen in galaxy clusters.

There is no such thing as "2-D and 3-D assessment". No they didn't. Please stop posting random crap that you made up.

Citation needed. Nonsense. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/16/left-right-brain-distinction-myth http://www.livescience.com/39373-left-brain-right-brain-myth.html https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/left-brain-right-brain-myth/

Citation needed. No, because that equation is to calculate the total mass-energy of an object in one frame of reference as observed from another frame of reference. The photon does not have a frame of reference, therefore the equation is not applicable.

Isn't the same true of the experiment in the OP? I.e. there was no point where a photon was travelling slower than c, but the overall speed of light (group velocity?) was reduced? But I can see there may be a difference between light slowing because photons are "just" interacting with atoms, compared to being completely absorbed and then recreated.

I don't believe you.

"Bringing light to a halt: Physicists freeze motion of light for a minute" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130806111151.htm

So there are some asymmetries between matter and antimatter. These are not yet fully understood. Dark matter is very obviously not nothing. And almost certainly not antimatter (if it were, why doesn't it annihilate with the matter). Which theories are those? Can you provide a reference? I find that very unlikely. Given the worldwide headlines when it was (mistakenly) thought that neutrinos had been measured travelling at a fraction aboce c, I think that travelling at 2.5c would have caused a storm of news. Can you provide a reference to neutrinos travelling at more than twice the speed of light? It doesn't really say anything like that. It seems you have a slightly jumbled understanding of quantum theory. As you do not have any mathematics or evidence to support this, you don't really have a "theory". What you have is a fertile imagination.

Except when it isn't. How do you get to say something is "wrong" when it has been a standard part of the language since ... well, the start of the language. The evidence is against you on this one. (And this is a science forum, after all.)