Strange

I am tempted to give you a -1 vote for this.

As people are able to hold such beliefs and still be perfectly rational, there doesn't seem to be problem with this. Other than the fact it annoys you.

OK. Let me rephrase that: Actually, that isn't irrational. It is perfectly rational. Continuing to believe something when the evidence shows it to be wrong, might be irrational. But, of course, that doesn't apply to the existence of god.

No. This looks like a good explanation: http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/geometry_force See the section "Remains of gravity" where it discusses tidal forces.

If you tell me which peer reviewed journals it has been published in, I will take a look. Because it may be insignificant. We do it all the time. Ask the people on the ISS if the feel Earth's gravity. As is being in free fall. GR is not necessarily required. We use Newtonian theory all the time.

This is true. But there can still be differences in gravitational potential (between the floor and roof of the free-falling box, for example).

It obviously isn't.

If this were true, he wouldn't be publishing it in a book (self-published by any chance?) but submitting it to peer-review. But of course it would fail and so... I had a feeling this "just asking" thread was going to end this way. Unless you are already thoroughly familiar with GR (and you don't give that impression) then you are not in a position to judges work.

I suppose. But it is a pretty pointless distinction.

That's it. (If I remember correctly.) Remember it is the difference in gravitational potential that is important. So if we are considering two bodies on the surface of the Earth, the difference will be nearly zero. In many other cases, the difference may be negligible.

This is not completely accurate. What they really mean is that adjustments have to be made for both the speed of the satellite (relative to the receiver) and the difference in gravitational potential. The first could be described purely by SR, the latter needs GR. But, in fact, SR is just a special case (the clue is in the name) of GR so GR would handle both the relative speed and the gravitational difference. However, that would require a full treatment using the rather complex math of GR. So from what I remember (it is decades since I worked on GPS systems) they use a GR-based approximation to handle the gravitational side of things and the (simple) Lorentz transform from SR for the relative speed.

Then it isn't an oven. That is irrelevant. We can observe the light from our and other galaxies. It is not a black body spectrum. For that you need a uniformly heated gas or plasma. But I think the answer is that it is about 1 million degrees. So you won't find much help there.

Actually, that isn't irrational. It is perfectly normal. I suspect everybody does it to some extent. Continuing to believe something when the evidence shows it to be wrong, might be irrational. But, of course, that doesn't apply to the existence of god.

I know. But it has never been done scientifically. When people have (or claim to have) done this, the children always start speaking the language of the experimenters (or, in some cases, some sort of high-prestige language like Latin). Which suggests it wasn't really done or the results were interpreted to support the belief that the language was the "best".

And maybe the fact that we are able to compartmentalise is one of the reasons that religion and other (non-religious) irrational beliefs are still around. Probably not me. But the fact there are many very rational people who study religion (using critical thinking skills) suggests that it is not considered exempt. Most, but not all, theologians are also believers. And some of the brightest minds around have often been theologians. And the existence of compartmentalisation shows that teaching critical critical skills would not eliminate religion. (Although it might, perhaps, reduce the proportion of people who follow formal religions.)

As there are great many very rational people who are also religious, that appears to be false.

Again, the devil is in the details. I don't immediately see anything there that supports the various random claims you have made ("quantum foam gravity", "steady state universe", etc.) Perhaps you could quote specific sentences that you think agree wth you.

We don't know it is infinite. By definition, we can only measure things from our observable universe. It depends on the temperature of that oven. Why? We have a model that explains the temperature. What is your alternative explanation? It is a characteristic of the OBSERVABLE universe. We are causally disconnected from the rest of the universe. So, no.

What's to explain?

The problems with this one are ethical rather than financial but ... Bring up a group of babies in isolation for other humans. They would be cared for (by machines), fed and kept safe. They could have toys and pets to play with. The question is: would they spontaneously develop a language among themselves? If they did, would it be fully developed or some sort of pidgin? And if the latter, would the second generation turn it into a full language? Actually, we can be fairly sure the answer to the last question is yes. But for the first two, we just don't know (for obvious reasons).

Good idea but (like all the best ideas) someone has beaten you to it! https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewdepaula/2012/11/08/teens-create-a-way-to-use-urine-as-fuel/#7f305690558c And there are various other approaches to extracting energy from urine as well, for example: http://www.iflscience.com/technology/microbes-turn-pee-electricity/ But maybe you can find ways of improving on these methods.

Great question. There might be some poets or artists who fall into this category. But their celebrity is probably more limited.

I didn't say they weren't. But they don't help explain why the OP's idea might (or might not) work.

I was thinking about gold a bit more. I think the value in early societies could have been more than just that it was shiny and pretty (and malleable and easy to melt). In an era of poorly understood decay, disease and death, a material that was apparently completely incorruptible must have seemed miraculous.

So maybe it is appropriate here