Strange

Entropy is not subjective. What makes you think that there is no evidence and facts involved in this area of science? Because one of the definitions of life is that it is self-sustaining - i.e. maintains its separation from the environment. Your inability, perhaps. I doubt it. You have never been able to expalin your ideas before. Complete gibberish. You can't isolate and remove individual reactions.

I didn't even know that extrinsic and intrinsic motivation were things. But this seems to answer the question: More at: http://psychology.about.com/od/eindex/f/extrinsic-motivation.htm

This does not just apply to religion, of course. (You only have to look at the Speculations forum here for examples.) I heard an amazing example on a radio program discussing the safety of a new type of bus in London. One of the guests was arguing that they should be banned because they were so dangerous. The other countered with statistics showing that they were actually safer (the host confirmed this, "Yes, I'm looking at the data and that is what it shows"). At which point the other guest shouted, "I don't care about the evidence, these buses are obviously more dangerous".

That is your unsupported opinion. So I assume it is wrong. Yes, that's great isn't it. OK. Bye. Also, "biggest evil ever"? Really? Worse than murder, rape, genocide, ... You need to get your mind sorted.

Well, clearly they, and others who have looked at the work, are familiar with Bell's Theorem so one has to assume that it does not trivially invalidate this work. (It is times like this I wish I had the expertise to really understand what they are doing!) Their paper is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328

Because, as others have noted, there has been a huge amount of work on how electrons are scattered by hadrons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_inelastic_scattering I doubt very much that bouncing toroids off one another will reproduce the same results. That is before we get into all the other issues that require quantum mechanics such as electron orbitals, quantized energy levels, entanglement, superposition of states, non-locality, ...

Then your model is DOA.

This article ends with: "Their theorem does, however, depend on a controversial assumption: that quantum systems have an objective underlying physical state." http://www.nature.com/news/a-boost-for-quantum-reality-1.10602 Isn't that what is described as a hidden variable in Bell's Theorem?

Why not address the challenges to what you have presented so far, first? If the rest of your "epic" is equally non-mathematical (i.e. not able to make specific testable predications) then I'm not sure how much value there is in presenting more of it.

Source: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/gg685494.aspx

Sounds like you are looking for Bell's Theorem: http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm

So perhaps the first thing to model is the effect of these particles bouncing off each other. It looks as though this toroidal structure would cause a very different pattern than either spherical objects or bags of quarks.

Maybe we should take down the "Abandon all hope..." sign at the entrance and replace it with that.

I think part of the problem is that many of these people have picked up their science in the form of analogies and simplifications, without realising that is the case and without understanding that there is a huge amount of detailed (mathematical) work behind it. They think the "stories" they hear and see in videos are all there is. And they don't, perhaps, see why their own stories shouldn't be equally valid. It is not enough to ask "where is the math" without explaining that mainstream science already has the math. And evidence.

Just as an aside, you seem to be very keen on statements like this regarding Hawking, Einstein and others. But it is important to note that science does not accept these ideas "because Hawking says so". And the words "supporters" and "believe" are completely inappropriate. Einstein, Hawking, Penrose, Minkowski, Hilbert, Lorentz, Poincare, Reimann, Friedmann, Lemaître, Robertson, Walker, Kerr, Schwarzschild and many, many others have developed the mathematical underpinnings of relativity and cosmology. These ideas have then been tested and confirmed against observation and experiment. That is why they are accepted as theories. Because they have been shown to work. Not because some particular person proposed it. And, if you have a new idea, that is what you need to do: show that it works. And, sadly, that requires mastering the necessary mathematics.

Sounds like a variant of begging the question: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

That is an assertion and can therefore be disregarded. Why the obsession with people becoming farmers? In many countries small farmers are amongst the lowest income. Why shouldn't they retire if they want to?

As ajb said, there is no need to embed the universe in a higher dimensional space for it to expand into. I understand your analogy perfectly. It is just inappropriate. The difference is that on the surface of the Earth, we can see there is a third dimension (up). However, as far as the universe is concerned there appear to be just the three spatial dimensions (plus time). Instead of thinking of it as expansion, does it help to think of it as distances increasing? The observable universe is that part of the universe that we are able to see. The distance we can see does increase over time as light from further away has time to get here but it is clearly a finite volume. But that is not what is meant by the "expanding universe". This is a description of the whole universe, including that beyond what we can see. No, not correct. How is it empty space if particles exist there? Anyway, as far as we know, the universe is roughly the same everywhere (this is a working assumption, based on the fact we have no reason to think otherwise.) The balloon is a 2D analogy, so in that analogy we can only see stars on the surface. If you can visualise a hyper-balloon with a 3D surface then you are more imaginative than me. But that would be one step closer to how the universe is modelled. You need to get past the "I don't understand it so it must be wrong" phase... In the balloon analogy, there is no "inside" of the balloon: we are only considering the surface. The surface has no centre. Close. But not quite. For one thing, there is no evidence the universe was "created"; that is not part of the model. Secondly not all galaxies were created at the same time. But stars and galaxies started to form at about the same time throughout the universe. (And then more stars and galaxies were formed later.) So it isn't true that everything is the same age. But on the other hand, there isn't a place where things are older. And that is what the universe is thought to be like: in other words homogeneous and isotropic.

Some people don't (can't) think in images at all: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34039054

The Hubble volume is defined as "is a spherical region of the Universe surrounding an observer beyond which objects recede from that observer at a rate greater than the speed of light due to the expansion of the Universe" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_volume This is caused by expansion but (oddly) doesn't take expansion into account, which is why it is smaller than the observable universe. No, it says that the FLRW metric doesn't have a centre; i.e. the universe doesn't have a centre. Both the observable universe and the Hubble volume are centred on the observer, but the universe isn't. Correct. You can only define/measure time dilation by comparing clocks. So you can compare gravitational time dilation in one part of space with that at another location at the same time. But how can you compare a clock yesterday with a clock today?

"Speed of expansion" doesn't really make sense. Expansion is a scaling effect. The distances between two points is continuously being multiplied by a scaling factor. This means that things are (all) moving apart from one another and the speed of separation is proportional to how far apart they are (this is just simple arithmetic, nothing to do with cosmology). As a consequence there are, and always have been, points in the universe that are sufficiently far apart that their separation speed is greater than the speed of light. Rather counter-intuitively, we can see galaxies that are receding at more than the speed of light. The speed of light limit only applies locally, to objects moving through space, so it doesn't apply to the expanding universe.

Space is now, and always has been, completely filled with matter.

Did anyone say that? Yes, no, and yes.

Also, the solar system is not a very good model for the dynamics of a galaxy. The Sun has 90-something percent of the mass of the solar system and so everything orbits it. The central black hole in the galaxy (there are others) has a fraction of a percent of the mass of the galaxy and only a few nearby stars orbit it. The paths of all the other stuff is determined by the mass of the rest of the stuff in the galaxy, not by the black hole.

I don't think so. It is purely theoretical, based on an attempt to combine quantum theory and GR. It is just an inevitable consequence of the curvature of space-time (in a universe with a homogeneous distribution of matter). No, it is just the coordinate used to measure the distance between events in time and space. It is just geometry. That is exactly what it shows. This is a good overview of GR, touching on gravity, black holes and the expanding universe: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/ It has some math, but I think it is possible to follow without fully understanding the math.