Strange

Bored by being proved wrong. Again.

Look, it's simple. Your god knows you are going to have waffles and coffee for breakfast. That means you can't change your mind and have bacon and tea, because that would prove that god is not omniscient. "Ah", you say, "but god knows that you are going to change your mind and have bacon and tea!" Well, that means that can't not change your mind and stick with waffles and coffee, because that would prove god wrong. Basically, whatever your god thinks you are going to do, you have to do because otherwise it would prove she was wrong. She knows, but can't be bothered. She doesn't need limbs so doesn't care.

One or both will obviously be greater. The length of the rod has decreased; the distance between A and B has not. The depth of your ignorance, perhaps?

It may well say that. It never happened though. There isn’t even enough water on Earth to do that. That is because they are ignorant of the real reason. But if god knows that they will not change then they cannot change and therefore they have no free will. In other words if the future is fixed (predetermined) because your god knows what will happen, then no one can change it and therefore they have no freedom.

I did wonder if it could be some form of mosaicism or chimerism (but I would have had to use google to find out more, so I didn't ) Or maybe none of the current members are trichologists.

So no free will then? If god has decided you can’t change then that’s it? That appears to go against 2000 years of theology

Yet you are still ignoring the size of the black hole and the mass of the object the force is exerted on. And you haven’t quantised “very large”. You haven’t even quantified “1”; that is completely meaningless.

Do you have a reference for that? There have been lots of experiments done on entangled electrons; for example: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/science/quantum-theory-experiment-said-to-prove-spooky-interactions.html

That is meaningless in so many ways: You are saying the force on a body at the even horizon is 1 newton (*). But you are ignoring both the size of the black hole and the mass of the body. And then you say "it could be much stronger". So it might not be 1 newton. It is 1 newton. Unless it is more. (*) The unit of force is newtons (lower case n). Or N (upper case N). But never Newtons. That is because there is no connection between these. You might as well try defining your weight in terms of the number of octaves on a piano keyboard.

Because you are predicting gravity to be less than we observe. It isn't. It IS what we observe. Or at least, that is what you appeared to be saying. But like most of your comments it was so vague and unquantified, who knows what it means. What does this mean? There is gravitational force attracting them? They should repel but don't? What does gravity have to do with charge? I think you should drop all this until you can post something that(a) makes sense and (b) corresponds to reality. You are a long, long way from either of those at the moment.

That would appear to disprove your model.

If there’s is a visible amount of steam given off, then it is probably a good idea to open the door in between to dissipate it. (Even if it isn’t visible, I guess) It would be interesting to weigh them before and after to see if there is a significant reduction.

You are correct that the time dimension is different. One difference is that we cannot stop "moving through" the time dimension and we can only go forward. But that is what makes it a time dimension rather than a spatial dimension. The reason it is a dimension is because of the independent information we need to specify an event. For example, if you are meeting someone for lunch, you need to specify the place (as 3 spatial dimensions; for example latitude, longitude and altitude; or som equivalent) but you also need to specify the time you are meeting. So you need four dimensions (independent values) to arrange the meeting.

Bazinga.

Citation needed. We would all be grateful if you retired from posting your religious drivel on this forum.

Can you show us the math that demonstrates this is possible?

Obviously not. You have had your errors explained MULTIPLE times. The fact that you persist is a sign of an unwillingness to learn and. Reported for tolling.

Well, they “behave” identically; it is just the mathematical description is different.

1 what? Femtometer? Foot? Mile? Parsec? And, of course, it depends on the mass.

Thanks. I’ll take a look.

The units don’t tell you anything about the magnitude, they just tell you the “type” of thing you are measuring. In the case of newtons that means force. A tiny force or a large force can be measured in newtons.

Some particles, such as protons and neutrons, are composite.

Neutrinos do not have internal structure.

Oh, y is gravitational force now. I thought it was angular momentum before. And what is x this week? How are you going to change gravitational force? Which bit of, "we have no way of controlling gravity" do you no understand? What evidence do you have that gravitational waves can be reflected?

Neutrinos are also elementary particles. My understanding of that section was that the larger mass (or, more accurately, mass difference) between the charged leptons means the oscillation is not observable. (But it isn't clear why.)