Strange

! Moderator Note This is not appropriate for this forum. Seek professional advice if you are worried.

! Moderator Note An Internet forum is not the right place to seek medical advice. See a doctor.

I might go further and say: It is not a faithful reproduction of our sensory input at all. I think it can be argued that what we perceive is based on sensory input but is almost entirely a creation of the brain.

! Moderator Note Our first rule is: Be civil.

I'm not so sure. There have been a couple of major paradigm shifts just in my lifetime. We have gone from a static Earth to plate tectonics, with continents drifting around and colliding (although, maybe that doesn't count as so many people - pretty much every child - had noticed things like the similarity of the coastlines of South America and Africa, for example). And then we went from a static, eternal universe to one that is expanding and appears to have a finite life. There could be others, but it is probably impossible to guess where they might be. Similarly, gravity is a fact (things fall down). But facts at that level of detail are not very useful. Once you start getting data (in what way have species changed, how fast things fall) then that can be evidence in support of (or against) a theory. But that evidence is subject to change and reinterpretation as we get more and more accurate data. So the facts themselves are of limited use (other than saying: we should look into this). And the evidence can't always be considered factual, as it is provisional.

Of course it does. It is trivially obvious. Anyone who can count can understand it. It has nothing to do with "interaction". It is just a matter of counting. Can you do that? No it doesn't. No it isn't. Absolutely not. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 If it were relative motion, then the recession velocities could not exceed the speed of light. Interpreting it as Doppler shift does not work.

Please provide the data to support that claim For example, there are about 300,000 books published per year in the US (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_published_per_country_per_year) compared with 1 Bible

Do you have any data to support your air con hypothesis?

! Moderator Note You already have one thread with your opinions on climate change. That is one too many.

You are mistaking a description of our current understanding for a statement of fact. This is a science forum. Everyone knows that theories are provisional and subject to change with new evidence. It doesn't need to be a stated every time. Such paradigm shifts happen fairly frequently - there have been several in my lifetime. I'm not sure how you think this is related to nation states. Most science today is completely multinational. Science is not really about "facts". I suppose you could call evidence "facts" but evidence can change.

And, actually, the existence of black holes, is irrelevant to the original question. One could just as well ask "what if the Sun's mass were compressed to a 6 km diameter sphere" or "what if the sun's mass were concentrated at a single point". The answers would have been exactly the same and anyone since Newton could have answered them. (But there is almost no doubt about the existence of black holes.)

Absolutely not. There is no proper motion involved (or at least, not significant). And if you try and model cosmological red-shift as the Doppler effect, you get the wrong results. Gravity could cause redshift of light from the galaxy (I'm not sure if that is large enough to be measurable). But not of light passing the galaxy - it will be blue shifted as it approaches and then redshifted by the same amount as it leaves. It explains the changing pitch of cars as they approach and recede. It explains how radar speed detectors work. What!? It is the simplest explanation of frequency change there is. Even children can grasp the full details. You don't really mean that you don't understand it. Do you? Surely I have misunderstood you.

Why would you think that? And how is it relevant? Maybe you should learn about black holes before making silly assertions. If a 1 kg mass falls into a black hole, then the black hole increases in mass by 1kg. So, again, why would we doubt the laws of gravitation that we have known and tested for 300 years?

In retrospect, maybe. Looking back in 20,000 years time, I'm sure people will regard our problems with a certain detachment. But, meanwhile, in the real world there are now large populations in towns and cities which will be put at risk by rising sea levels, more extreme weather, loss of agricultural land, etc. And you are ignoring the fact that there were not large cities and other communities built on the coasts. In the past people would have just moved. But if major cities like NY or London are subject to massive flooding, this will cause real problems to the people who live there, but also internationally when communications, financial transactions and business are affected. You are doing the usual crackpot thing of trying to pin the beam on an individual. When it comes to climate change, the cranks blame Gore (some sort of American politician, I gather, so I don't know why crackpots are so obsessed) or specific scientists like Mann. Whereas, reasonable people look at the data, not the people.

I never said it hasn't always changed. What is foolish (or dishonest) is to ignore the magnitude and rate of the current changes (and the causes) and pretend it is like past climate change.

All of them. University and practical research. Science. You know: use the model to make predictions, test those against observation and experiment. Do you need a list of experiments specifically to test our theories of gravity? There is well over 300 hundred years of experiments testing our understanding of gravity. And over 100 years of testing the details of general relativity specifically. Can you say why we might doubt this? That paragraph is so confused. Hawking never said energy can disappear. You need to find a better source of information. Even Wikipedia (for all its flaws) is a better resource than some random blog, or whatever that was.

BlueGreyBrain has been banned as a sock puppet of thoughtfuhk.

I guess that is because of your language preferences in the search engine, as various links to the English text come up first for me. http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf

You may be right although I don't see where wind comes into it.

Uhmmm ... let me see: And ... And pretty much every post you make. Or do you not really believe what you write? It's a shame your church doesn't go that extra step and say " we accept the theories produced by science and so must you". That is not a scientific fact.

Is this a lead-in to the childish "but climate has always changed" argument?

(a) Physicists. (b) Physics.

FTFY: There is speculation that it is artificial and would, in that case, be less than a millimetre thick. But there is no evidence nor measurement of this.

Don't be ridiculous. Your next sentences go on to describe In a rather garbled way) some of the evidence we now have. So to say we don't know whether the old, commonly-held, view that universe is wrong or right. Is idiotic. We do know that it is wrong. Why do you think it is missing? Where do you think it has gone? What evidence do you have for this? What connection does it have to the thread? You have just been told that he was wrong. He was wrong on several other things. So what? Only anti-science religious crackpots like you care. And you did completely misrepresent him when you said he was completely wrong. When the same mathematics was used, with new evidence to change our understanding of the universe. So the theory (the important bit) wasn't wrong at all. Except he was wrong. But the mathematics wasn't. And science isn't about "truth". Another common religious misconception.

Err, what!? No. Just no. There is no wind inside the room I am in (or on the International Space Station, if you are going to claim it is the wind outside the building) and yet the air exerts pressure in all directions. Air is a fluid. The constant collisions between molecules distributes the momentum (and therefore pressure) in all directions.