Strange

None of that makes any sense at all. f course it was "in error". There are errors in all measurements. They just happened to be larger than hoped in that experiment. It doesn't mean the results were wrong. And what does this have to do with your idea, anyway? Do you have any evidence of gravity pushing? What is the connection between the (incomplete) equation e=mc2 and gravity travelling at the speed light? And how does this support your idea?

If it a massless void, then it is not an object. And if it is elliptical it is not spherical. If it is a massless void, there would be no gravity. (And "there") Why would a massless void need any forces? Why is that guaranteed? Most objects in the universe are electrically neutral, so there will be no EM force. The weak and strong forces have limited range (pretty much within the nucleus) and so will have no effect. And where does angular momentum come into this? What is rotating?

They both travel at the speed of light because they have infinite range (or, equivalently, have massless quanta). This has nothing to do with angular momentum. You seem to be just throwing buzzwords together without knowing what they mean. And yet, they do.

But the heart is not separate and doesn't have a separate function. A better analogy would be: if rain has a separate function from the body, how can it fall without the body? Well, of course it can because it is separate.

While true, this is utterly pointless. After all, you can just choose an Earth-centred frame of reference and ignore the motion of the Earth through space. Inverse square laws don't move. Or even involve movement. Where is the speed in: [latex]f = G\frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}[/latex] ? You clearly don't understand as much as you think you do.

This doesn't make much sense. If anything, because it has a separate function therefore it can function alone without them. They travel at the speed of light, which is the fastest. There isn't really any commonality. Most galaxies are flat spirals. A hydrogen atom is (in its lowest energy state) spherical. It is never a flat spiral.

Yes, I believe so. For example, Tyson obviously believes that science is true whether or not you believe in it. And Wilson believes that once you believe anything, you stop thinking about it. And Walker (whoever he is) believes that beliefs caused ignorance, misery, violence and war. Do any of them have evidence for these beliefs? Are they scientific conclusions based on research? Or just their personal opinions (i.e. beliefs)?

It is a pretty complex process involving ion exchange reactions to create a voltage across the membrane ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_potential

Just because the word resume is more likely to be used in the US and CV in the UK, which then correspond to sales clerk vs sales person/assistant.

1. What new theories? 2. How would this make stuff you invent true?

Well, apart from theory and indirect measurements, it is also possible to directly image electron density and see how this corresponds to theory, for example: http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v3/n4/full/nchem.1008.html?wt.ec_id=nchem-201104

Yes. (Or sales clerk, if is going on a resume rather than a CV.)

Your grasp of English is very poor. "The" top-level domain implies that there is only one, or that you are referring to a specific TLD that has already been mentioned. I think you mean "a" top-level domain. I am not going to guess which one it might be, as I assume it is full of the same sort of crap you post here. You have just chosen some quotations by famous people that support your belief. But ... People's opinions are not evidence (except of their opinions). And appeal to authority is a fallacy.

Right. But there isn't one called "nonbeliefism". This level of error means I am not inclined to believe the other things you say. Especially as you provide no evidence to support your ideas.

It is not a lie. That is exactly the point. Switching frames of reference doesn't invalidate Kepler's laws, either. How can an inverse square law be a speed? Your first attempt to introduce some maths to support your idea doesn't make much sense.

Fo someone who hates religious dogma, you are pretty dogmatic (and irrational) about religion.

Thanks, that confirms my belief that nonbeleifism is not a TLD. And confirms my belief that you don't know what you are talking about. You may believe that, but you are wrong. How do you contact a paradigm? Telephone?

I don't know whether to believe that or not. Do you believe it? I also believe that argument from authority is a fallacy. I don't believe that. So should I believe this and apply for the domain mywebsite.nonbeliefism? I don't believe so. I believe you are wrong about what TLD means. Can you believe that? Also, I don't believe this should be in religion.

That does not appear to be how neutrons were discovered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_the_neutron And just because you made something up and it makes sense to you, does not make it true. People like to feel smart.

Why? So what? You are choosing two different frames of reference to compare. That is like saying: speed of a car 50km/h; speed of the Earth 30km/sec. Therefore we need to rethink fuel consumption figures.

ൠ

Again, I think you are exactly right. It is the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun (in a heliocentric frame of reference) that means it sometimes goes faster and slower than the Sun. The OP's problem seems to be that if the you accept one frame of reference (e.g. the galactic) then all the rest must be wrong. Whereas, in reality, you choose whichever is most convenient.

And the "object" was a spherical cow of near zero mass.

I think Mrs Malaprop and Hyacinth Bucket will keep you company.

See! I told you. In the UK, I think a clerk (pronounced clark) only works in a bank or, just maybe, an office.