Strange

It would be interesting to see how a Google translation differed from the OP

This was done a few thousand years ago to calculate the circumference of the Earth: https://www.famousscientists.org/eratosthenes/ Edit: just realised I shouldn't really take part in the thread as I acted as moderator. I will keep out now!

I just listed three. There have been others. This has been explained multiple times. SPACECRAFT. They follow paths predicted by the laws of gravity (in general Newtonian gravity is good enough, but GR is used in some cases) which relies on the value of G being constant at any distance. How many more times do you need to be told before it sinks in? Then you should have no problem providing some evidence.

Just a couple of examples: You claimed G is a function of distance. It isn't. You claims G has not been measured at a distance. This is untrue. Your replacement for G has the wrong dimensions. So the problem is that you are ignoring any corrections of your errors, not they have not been made.

You don't need to consider fuel consumption, just the effects of gravity on spacecraft - eg when using slingshot manoeuvres. This has been completely explained. Really? "The effect is an extremely small acceleration towards the Sun, of (8.74±1.33)×10−10 m/s2, which is equivalent to a reduction of the outbound velocity by 1 km/h over a period of ten years." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly Sounds like you are just making stuff up. "By 2012 several papers by different groups, all reanalyzing the thermal radiation pressure forces inherent in the spacecraft, showed that a careful accounting of this explains the entire anomaly, and thus the cause was mundane and did not point to any new phenomena or need for a different physical paradigm.[2][3] The most detailed analysis to date, by some of the original investigators, explicitly looks at two methods of estimating thermal forces, then states "We find no statistically significant difference between the two estimates and conclude that once the thermal recoil force is properly accounted for, no anomalous acceleration remains."[4]" Ibid.

Potentially confusing because the interference pattern is, itself, wave-like!

Yes, it lists plutonium as one of the elements created. It also says that there was a period after the initial event where the majority of the light came from the radioactive decay of elements.

Agreed. So, on that basis, I think John Baez's overview of the Einstein Field Equations is really good: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/ You can read the introduction and get something from it, without understanding all the math, and then go on to read the sections on gravity and the Big Bang, etc. While the idea of creating a model is great, the interesting thing is that the first models did not start from the expansion we observe. They started from modelling what would happen in the case of a uniform distribution of matter. And what di that show: that expansion (or contraction) would occur naturally. You then plug in observations about the observed density of matter and energy and find the model matches observed rates of expansion. The trouble is, if you build a model based purely on what we observe, how do you test it? It is purely descriptive, not predictive.

OK. That’s basically the BB model (prior to dark energy) And that sounds like the suggestion that dark energy is an intrinsic property of empty space, so as space expands the amount of dark energy increases.

Good summary of the observations at the time (gravitational waves and all electromagnetic spectrum) and what has been observed since then, including a relativistic jet (confirming the creation of a black hole). Or about twice the mass of all the world's oceans. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/02/21/merging-neutron-stars-made-an-unstoppable-jet-and-it-moves-at-nearly-the-speed-of-light/

Why? It can't generate any more energy.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please note that you need to provide evidence to support your claims. (As you are claiming the Earth is flat, that will not be possible, so I don't expect this thread to stay open long.)

Well, for one thing, the density of photons and therefore their effective pressure has decreased as the universe has expanded. And their energy has decreased because of expansion (cosmological red-shift). I'm sue there are other reasons ...

There is no matter to generate any electromagnetic radiation (apart from any small amount of gas and dust surrounding the back holes).

This seems to be confusing the gender that a person identifies as with their sexual orientation.

We have sent satellites and spaceships very long distances using the constant value of G in calculations. It seems to be correct.

And, in a cooperative environment, I'm sure it can often be difficult to say who actually came up with an idea during discussions. (Have had similar problems with patents.) But it does seem that sometimes the "administrators" might take more credit than is perhaps deserved.

We don't want to go too far off-topic here but ... I wasn't really happy with what I wrote because, obviously, the reason that inflation was proposed is because there is evidence that needs an explanation (the uniformity of the CMB) and inflation is one possibility. I guess what I really meant was that there is no other evidence for it yet. (Nor for any of the other hypotheses.) So how are they separate universes? Sound like they are just different parts of the one universe. And how do they affect one another: in other words, what evidence would we look for?

G is a constant and does not change with distance.

Well spotted!

As the shell theorem is a purely mathematical proof, you need to show where the mathematics is wrong. (The rest of your post is totally incomprehensible.)

I interpreted it to mean the whole menu area, not just the text. (Because I know that just changing the text background looks really ugly!)

That will only colour the background of the text, which will probably result in blocks of red around the text surrounded by the existing background.

Apparently. I was surprised as well!

I don’t think this analogy (which came from Hawking himself) is any more false than most other analogies. But as with all analogies, it is not a good idea to try and base new theories on them. That is a common misunderstanding of the analogy. Either particle could fall in. But the one that falls in has an effective negative mass (this may be what your video says, I don’t know).