Strange

But inference in science is based off n s (mathematicall) model. Inferring the existence of gods isn’t, it is just based on faith. Which is fine, it just isn’t science. Maybe you should just ask him what (objective, quantifiable) evidence would falsify his God Model.

That doesn’t make sense though. Everthing we know about dark matter is completely based on evidence. It is entirely empirical. There are various hypotheses for what dark matter is, all are consistent to some degree with the evidence. There is, as far as I know, no objective, quantitative evidence that is consistent with god. But who cares? People don’t believe in god because of objective, quantitative evidence. Aargh. Auto correct - should have been dark matter! I would suggest starting with the Wikipedia page. The ONLY reason we know something labelled “dark matter” (got it right that time) exist is because we see evidence of it. Measurable, quantifiable, objective evidence. I struggle to see how anyone can say it is non-empirical. I guess he has learnt a little bit in his way hilosophy course about how to challenge arguments and is over stretching his reach. (A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and all that) What does he mean by “correct”? That is the standard (if simplistic) definition of the scientific method that you can find in many sources. The trouble is, there has been a lot of debate (among philosophers) about that definition since then. And practical science doesn’t always fit that pattern. So I suspect he is just trying to pull you out of your depth, hoping to confuse you and push you under.

If it were not a mathematical model (it is) then it wouldn’t be a scientific theory. But there is no evidence for it.

Mathematics and evidence. But exactly the same is true of the electromagnetic field. Or quarks. Or even atoms. And exactly the same will true of that (if there is ever any evidence for it). You seem to prefer a mathematical model for which there is no evidence over one for which there is a large amount of evidence. Why is that? All the evidence s consistent with the model. That is all you ever say in science. It may show that. But theories based on that idea haven't worked so far. So the overwhelming evidence is that it is matter.

There is no atmosphere on the moon but there is still gravity. You (and we) don’t know if we will accept them unless you show us. That’s not the way it works. It is up to you to provide evidence that it is gravity by eliminating all other causes. You have been given several suggestions. It is up to you to refine your experiment to eliminate those possibilities.

We have such a law in the EU

That’s not true. Hang a weight from a very long thread. If your machine generates a force that pulls the weight sideways then it will not have to oppose Earth’s gravity very much. The longer the thread, the better as this means there will be less vertical displacement. Also, as someone noted earlier, if it is gravity then a more massive weight will experience a greater force and therefore a larger displacement. If you actually had a theory you would be able to predict the magnitude of this force.

It has nothing to do with mathematics. This is all too silly. Time for the moderation queue perhaps.

But your equation for pi is not a ratio. Also, it is wrong. Can you explain this?

And, what needs to be explained? The evidence. You can’t make the evidence go away by playing with words. It is tested and it is based on direct observation. That is for the existence of something we call "drama matter". We don't know what "dark matter" is and there have been many hypothesis -- some of them being that it is a form of matter -- some have been rejected because of testing and direct observation others are still consistent with the evidence. Even if we make "direct" observations of dark matter particles, those will be indirect -- as all such detections are. There is no point. You are talking about different things. When he uses the word "science" he is talking about something he has made up, not science as it is actually done. Therefore nothing you can say about science is relevant. Similarly, whatever he says about his "science" is irrelevant because he is not talking about science but is invented (strawman) version of it. You could point out he is making a category error of his own invention. And then walk away.

You might want to look at the science around this instead of irrelevant myths For example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

Pi is a constant. Your equatin for pi is not constant. It varies with the size of the circle and even the units (eg feet or metres) used to measure the circle. Therefore your equation seems to be wrong. Please justify this.

And, it is not in the least bit surprising that they inherited this story from a civilisation between two large rivers that regularly ... flooded. And they came up with a flood story. Amazing.

It is not expected to. The theory of evolution doesn't explain how to bake a great chocolate cake.

You can interpret it that way, but it doesn't;t say that. If that is what they wanted to say, why didn't they say it. Also, there is no evidence for the model of "creation" that you propose. So the whole idea seems to be based on two things you have made up with no supporting evidence. Fine. If that's what you want to believe. But there doesn't;t seem to be any science here.

Of course if "concerns scientific evidence". Are you trying to say that there is no evidence for GR? If you just mean that we don't know if space-time "exists" or the theory represents "reality" then that is true of all science. And is completely irrelevant.

Very good suggestion.

You are suggesting that air only flows into the tube. If this were the case then either: the tube would eventually explode or there would be a massive outrush of pressurised air when you turn the machine off. Do either of these happen?

Exactly. That is not a symmetrical case. One of the twins moves relative to the other one. We know this because he accelerates and decelerates. Acceleration is "absolute" - you can tell when you are accelerating because you will feel a force. (Note there are versions of the experiment where you eliminate the acceleration but the same principle of asymmetry between the twins applies; it is just more complicated to explain!) The "paradox" is: something happens that is counter-intuitive. There are no real paradoxes in physics. The various things that are called "paradoxes" only appear that way if you don't know the explanation. (A bit like magic tricks!)

How do we know it doesn't. All we have seen is you waving a piece of paper around in front of a tube. I don't even know if there is any airflow into the tube moving the paper or not. If it was metal and grounded, that would help. That is slightly incoherent. But you seem to be saying that the force generated by your machine would be blocked by a thing film of plastic. If that is the case then it can't be gravity. If gravity was blocked by a thin sheet of plastic then you could just lay that sheet of the floor and float above it. You keep making references to "your theory". If you have a theory, why not explain it instead of relying on videos?

You have had a few plausible suggestions already: Mechanical movement of the air (like a fan) - sealing the other end of the tube won't eliminate this possibility. You need to seal the end near your "sensor" (i.e. the piece of paper). Electrostatic force produced by mechanical motion of whatever is inside the tube Just random vibrations in the machine wobbling around on the bench and the piece of paper you are frantically waving around -- basically, until you address the shoddiness of your setup, then anything possible

Show the mathematical model. Show the predictions of the mathematical model. Show an experiment and/or measurements that are consistent with the predictions of the model. Provide enough detail of the experimental method to convince people that you have taken sufficient care to eliminate alternative explanations and to reduce the errors in your measurements. Ideally get other people to reproduce the experiments. This is basic science.

It is nothing to do with whether I can comprehend it or not. You have not presented a model and you have not presented any evidence that supports that model. I didn't say your theory is vague. I said what you have presented here is very vague. If you have a theory (ie. a mathematical mode) then present it. Then we can discuss the evidence for and against it. As it is you have mode some vague statements about air and shown a video of a very unconvincing demonstration. Fine. But the important thing is to find out why it is attracting the air. You claim it is because of gravity. In order to convince others of that you need to eliminate all other possible causes. One is that the device in the tube is acting like a fan and (mechanically) pulling the air in. To reduce the possibility of that being a reason, just seal the end of the tube and see what happens. If it is gravity, then the air will still be attracted to it. What we see is you waving a paper towel around. You will need something much more credible to convince anyone there is actually any force or air movement. It could be all sorts of things. Given what we know, artificial gravity would be low on the list of possibilities. Someone said "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence." I am not going to convinced that someone has invented antigravity by a video of someone waving a piece of paper around. (Incidentally, videos are a very poor form of evidence. Look at all those videos of Penn and Teller doing "impossible" things. They are all tricks. I am NOT saying that you are trying to trick us. I understand you are genuine and have convinced yourself. I am just trying to help you understand what you need to do in order to convince others. My question is: what happens if you eliminate the possibility of mechanical movement of the air by covering the end of the tube?

Science doesn't really "prove" anything. The way science works is to create a model and then compare it against reality. In the case of Newtonian gravity, this works extremely well but a few odd cases were found where it wasn't completely accurate - such as the precession of Mercury. When GR came along as a theory of gravity, it correctly predicted the results for those cases. So it is, in general, a better theory. However, Newtonian gravity is good enough in almost all cases. You do not have a model (or at least, not one you have presented here). Therefore your "idea" (for want of a better word) cannot be tested against the real world. As such, there is no reason for anyone to consider it as a better theory than those we have at the moment. I'm really not sure why you think anyone should take your vague claims and dodgy video seriously. Then it should still move the air even if you cover the end of the tube. That can't be difficult, so why not try it?

I would be rather concerned that dumping all that in the lake would destabilise it and cause the very problem you are trying to solve. Also, what is the rate of CO2 production? Presumably this would need to be an ongoing process, not just a one-off fix.