beecee

Around 2000 years ago it was logical to believe that the Sun was the center of the universe...we saw it rise in the East and "circle"the Earth to set in the West. A great scientist was incarcerated for daring to suggest that it was the Earth orbiting the Sun, and the Sun was situated on the outskirts of a humdrum galaxy, with billions and billions of other galaxies. I havn't the time to read your "book/post"at this stage but many of the principals of SR were verified in vacuum chambers on Earth.

The count for confirmed exoplanets is around 3000 now I think. What do you mean "can become trillions of years"? If you mean a lifetime of trillions of years, then I doubt it. Our Sun has a useful life span of about 10 billion years...we are half way through that already. Smaller stars have longer life spans and larger stars, shorter life spans. Or perhaps your trillions of years refer to stellar remnants? If that is correct then yes. White Dwarfs [the final state of our own Sun] Neutron stars and BHs are going to last trillions of years, and probably up to the end stages of the universe itself, when White Dwarfs and Neutron stars will become black cinders and decay and BHs evaporate.

Most BH's are stellar size and/or SMBHs found at the center of galaxies. It has been theorised that quantum size BHs could have also resulted fro the period just post BB. What would happen if you stuck your hand inside the EH of a BH about hand size. Such a BH would be tremendously dense and I would say that tidal gravitational effects would see you and your hand ripped asunder long before you put your hand inside. Let me add that if the Sun could be magically squeezed inside its Schwarzchild radius, it would have a diameter of around 6 kms! In other words the mass of the Sun squeezed to within a 6 kms volume.

Very wise statements indeed! I certainly wish I could give it more then one like or up vote. With regards to the scientific method I would like to use as the best example, Albert Einstein. A somewhat humble man, who did the research over many years particularly with formulating GR, and wasn't backward in using the research and discoveries of his peers, of the likes of Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Riemann, and others I have forgotten or am ignorant of. My respect also goes out to Ghideon and the patience he has shown with utmost integrity. Patience obviously I havn't got! My only excuse is that I have seen many individuals over three forums [one now defunct] that have claimed to have over thrown many incumbent theories/models, most of course trying to topple Einstein and/or Newton, both regarded as being at the upper most echelon of scientific knowledge, and prowess. Those same individuals invariably try and put the onus of invalidation if their pet schemes on others, and invariably and continually ask for "proof" of the incumbent model and almost certainly side step the tried and true scientific methodology. With regards to the claims being made in this thread, it reminds me of the sensational breaking news a few years back. That experiment, showed that neutrino particles at the CERN Lab had arrived at a particular destination that showed that they had travelled faster then light. The experiment was run again...again the same Einstein defying results were seen.Big big news indeed!!! Sceptical scientists from memory at the same CERN Lab later showed that a couple of anomalies had existed in the experiment, one being the incorrect attachment of a fibre optic cable, the other something to do with a clock synchronisation. In more recent times an experiment called BICEP2 showed gravitational waves discovery was not really valid due to dust contamination.

So far we have claims that [1] Gravity is generated in a workshop, [2] An orbit is actually a gravity assist sling shot manoeuvre, [3] That a tube vibrating on a bench with a fan is analogous to planets orbiting, [4]That it is the weight of air that keeps us on the surface of the Earth, [5] and all of this somehow explains Saturn's rings [] and finally [6] that I'm mad! Oh the irony of it all!

Not exactly Star Trek type teleportation, but interesting none the less. https://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/scientists-teleport-an-object-to-space-for-the-first-time-ever

Saying that 300 years of gravitational knowledge is wrong and based on experiments and observations, we know that gravity cannot be generated in the Lab, or workshop, and to say it can, or infer that it can, is pseudoscientific nonsense. You have done no more then show some pretty questionable pictures, regarding some poorly conducted experiment, and then claimed to have created gravity, and then continue on with even more outrageous claims that defy what we already know, which on face value reflect that you either suffer from delusions of grandeur or are trolling. Unlike you, I don't hide from my amateur status in this game, nor do I suffer the malady of delusions of grandeur, I'm simply quoting mainstream scientific data that has been observed and tested many many times.

Yep, totally correct, and as per the rules of the speculation section of the forum, all speculation put will undergo scientific scrutiny.

Great!! And then come back here and inform the forum how you were totally wrong in your hypothetical.

You can claim whatever you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong and seem to be making ever more silly claims, the latest being of course that the air above us is keeping us on the surface. Again as was pointed out to you earlier, you don't get to make things up. A gravity assist sling shot is as follows....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist "In orbital mechanics and aerospace engineering, a gravitational slingshot, gravity assist maneuver, or swing-by is the use of the relative movement (e.g. orbit around the Sun) and gravity of a planet or other astronomical object to alter the path and speed of a spacecraft, typically to save propellant and reduce expense. Gravity assistance can be used to accelerate a spacecraft, that is, to increase or decrease its speed or redirect its path. The "assist" is provided by the motion of the gravitating body as it pulls on the spacecraft.[1] The gravity assist maneuver was first used in 1959 when the Soviet probe Luna 3 photographed the far side of Earth's Moon and it was used by interplanetary probes from Mariner 10 onwards, including the two Voyager probes' notable flybys of Jupiter and Saturn." I'm not qualified enough to argue with Janus's figures, but I'm pretty sure your suggestive claims are explained by the simple fact that [1] the ISS in in free fall around the Earth [as defined in an orbit] and the Moon is in free fall around the earth [as defined in an orbit] This explains your gravity query as when in free fall, and acceleration due to gravity and weight or lack thereof due to freefalling.

But inferring any deity generally is associated with magical supernatural powers that such a deity is said to perform. If we take YECs, they say [I think] that the Earth was created 6000 years ago. That is easily debunked. I'm sure there are many other examples. So in my opinion, debunking all these magical deeds that said deity has performed, show that said deity is superfluous and plainly not needed. Science obviously is a discipline in continued progress. Highlighting the fact that science does not know everything, and thereby invoking some deity, is the old "god of the gaps" fallback on his part. Reality more likely is that at this time we just don't know.

No it does not depend on what you consider to be proof. A scientific theory is always open for modification, change or totally scrapping as further evidence comes to light. Although as scientific theories continue to withstand scrutiny, they do become more and more certain. And of course gravity can show star dynamics...in fact gravity explains how the universe is what we see today, stars, planets, galaxies, stellar remnants etc. Perhaps you need a rundown?

It gets quite boring reminding those that profess to know about science, that scientific theories do not align with "proof" From your link....In a field model, rather than two particles attracting each other, the particles distort spacetime via their mass, and this distortion is what is perceived and measured as a "force". In such a model one states that matter moves in certain ways in response to the curvature of spacetime, This curvature of spacetime/gravity is evident by many means and aligns with it being a field

You are obviously ignoring all those here that have taken science classes and more, and as a result coming up with more and more inane suggestions such as the air holding us down on the surface of the Earth. When I was a young bloke, I would be in fits of laughter watching the three stooges. Your suggestions and claims do them proud.

If you had new ideas it maybe considered. But all you have is woo and pseudo.

Your particular brand of rubbish though is as already mentioned...to get a raise out of people and the mark of a troll.. Perhaps this should be moved to a more appropriate section?

If we accept that science can infer god, then what about the claims that are associated in general with any God? Testing for the actual existence of God may not be possible, but what is possible is to put under scientific scrutiny the stuff that is generally attributed to this supernatural being. You know creating the world 6000 years ago, is easily falsified as total nonsense, or the same scientific scrutiny can be put to work to falsify other examples of the supernatural, say a ghost for example and a haunted house. With regards to the final rejection by our friend re falsifiability, testability and reproducibility, this appears as simply rejecting outright the scientific method. Perhaps as the scientific method has demoted any need for any god like creature via those three pillars would be strong reasons for some fanatical religious person to automatically reject them without any logical reason to do so. The same also goes for his outright rejection of abiogenisis. The eternal question then always remains, how is any god like creature able to have infinite powers and have existed for eternity? At least science in speculative arguments based on already current knowledge and observational data, can speculate about all of spacetime, matter energy arising via quantum fluctuations from nothing.

You havn't got a theory nor a model, simply some speculative hypothetical. Planets per se do not create gravity. Spacetime curves, warps or twists in the presence of mass/energy, and we recognise it as gravity.

You keep saying that but I still fail to see any connection. Orbital parameters are what they are and depend on mass of both bodies and speed. This also has no connection to generating gravity in the Lab, workshop or garage. Forget me saying its possible....it is and has been demonstrated many many times with many man made probes, but still has SFA to do with your claim of generating gravity in the Lab.

Which has SFA to do with generating gravity in a Lab, Workshop, or backyard shed.

The planet is still in an orbit albeit an ellipse. A sling shot gravity assist is as stated.

The local speed of light is always "c" but since the geodesic path it travels is obviously longer, the coordinate speed measured by a distant observer will appear to be slowed.

You are making things up. The earth is in a simple orbit...a combination of free-falling around the Sun, and a tendency of wanting to fly off at a tangent into space: Newton's first law. A sling shot is when a probe such as the Voyagers, Galilleo, Cassini etc need a gravity assist to access more speed and also change of direction. The energy is taken from the orbital path of the prime body/planet. The rest of that jumbled text and what you are trying to say, I'm unable to decipher. Saturn's rings are already adequately explained as are the orbital anomalies of some of its moons, such as the orbital swap pair of Epimetheus and Janus, and the other "Shepherd moons" that exist with Saturn and Jupiter and that help in maintaining the observed narrow bands of the rings.

Sure! my reasonable speculation based on your own questionable and extremely unlikey speculation.

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-year-australian-reveals-steep-decline.html 32-year Australian study reveals steep decline in student belief that God created humans August 21, 2018, University of New South Wales The top figure shows the percentage of students who, between 1986 and 2017, choose one of four options in relation to the human evolution: (1) humans were created by God within the last 10,000 years (green); (2) humans evolved over millions of years with the whole process guided by God (blue); (3) humans evolved over millions of years but God had no part in this process (red); or (4) they are uncertain what they think (yellow). Figures include lines of best fit from linear and quadratic regressions with 95% confidence intervals. The bottom figure shows the percentage of the wider Australian public who have declared in national censuses between the years 1986 and 2016 that they have no religion. Credit: UNSW Australian university students give far more credit than the previous generation to the science of human evolution and far less to creationism or divine guidance, according to a landmark new study. In an overview of the last 32 years of annually-assessed student opinions, it is clear that belief among students that a god is the ultimate or contributing cause of human origins has steeply declined from being a majority view in 1986 to being a small minority view in 2017. Conversely, conviction that humans evolved without divine involvement of any kind rose steeply over the same period to become the dominant view among students. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-year-australian-reveals-steep-decline.html#jCp