Strange

These are not "probable causes". They are speculations with no supporting evidence. Barely even real science. Maybe if it weren't nonsense ...

What about all the direct measurements of G performed by Cavendish and many others? What about the CERN Alpha project that aims to test the gravitational effect of anti-matter using a small number of (anti) hydrogen atoms. You don't get much smaller than that.

I don't think gravity has ever been nonsense. Things have always fallen down. No such cause has been established. (Neither has any "creation" of the universe.) There are various speculations and hypotheses but these don't really have very much more basis than "god did it".

So humans are responsible for malaria, parasitic worms, floods, famine, earthquakes, etc? Not your god who created those things? Your opinions are disgusting and vile. Luckily, your god also created the ignore function on the forum.

Everything moves forward in time, kinda by definition. In non-curved space-time two objects will move forward on parallel paths. A useful analogy might be to think of lines of longitude on the Earth. These converge on the North Pole. That means that as two objects move along their lines of longitude, they get closer together. Now, imagine that the North Pole is "the future", so moving north is like moving forward in time. So it is in curved space-time: as two objects move forward in time, their paths are no longer parallel and they get closer together as they move through time. Just as if a force were operating on them. (But there is no force.)

OK. I am going to scientifically redefine Dog to mean a two-legged bipedal mammal. Therefore we are minimally capable dogs.

It is not gravity that causes red-shift but the change in gravitational potential. As the (average) density of the early universe was the same everywhere and is still the same everywhere, I don't think that there is any change in gravitational potential. However, the theory that calculates gravitational red-shift (GR) is also the theory that calculates cosmological red-shift. So if there were any gravitational effect, it would be included in the model automatically.

In what language is "a soft warping of an amply modicum variation of Newton's calculus" a meaningful statement?

Well, if you use a silly definition of "god" then, yes, you can claim humans are gods. But what is the point?

Why would you think we don't use most of our brain? Also, our brains can work perfectly well without language.

Quite. But this was about civil marriages versus civil partnerships. Why did they feel the need to appease the church by inventing a different system for homosexual partnerships? Oh yes, because of the bishops in the House of Lords of course. The UK really needs a proper separation of church and state...

Why would anyone trust you when you post complete nonsense. It is not even good science fiction.

That doesn't seem relevant. As the article says:

They wanted a marriage rather than a second-rate thing called a "civil partnership" (which, I think, was just invented to keep the bishops quiet). They wanted complete equality. And why not.

Not if you provide evidence by actually doing it. As it is, this gibberish is not likely to get you very far.

That is what the theory says. If you have an alternative model, please feel free to post the mathematics and the evidence in the Speculations forum.

Why not go back in time and post a new comment before this one. Just to prove you are not a delusional crackpot. (I am quite sure you are not, but others might like some evidence.)

I don't think so. In the UK they introduced civil partnerships which are pretty much the same as marriage in all but name (and, maybe, a few details). But many people still wanted a proper wedding. They have now allowed gay marriage. They should have got rid of the civil partnership thing at the same time but didn't, for some reason. Some heterosexual people want the right to have a civil partnership, because "marriage isn't for them". This seems pretty stupid, to me.

Really? I have always been told that it is bad to use the back of chair (for long periods). It is much better to support your own back - as long as you keep it straight.

Agreed. I have seen some ideas for much better tests of intelligent thought. (Consciousness is much harder, but if a machine shows itself to be capable of intelligent independent thought and then says it has the same concept of consciousness that we do, why would we assume it is lying?)

How would you tell?

That is because it is distributed throughout and around galaxies (and between). Whereas normal matter is mainly concentrated in stars and planets. So, the total amount of dark matter is much larger, even though its average density is very low. (The density of dark matter increases towards the centre of the galaxy, so is very low around the solar system.) Then you need to show how that would work. You said: "Only in this case anti-matter creates an even force around a body of matter, repelling each other enough to keep the mass of matter in a Constant shape." Also, how is curved space-time "a form of repellency"? There is an equal an opposite force. Feel your chair pushing up on you? That is the same force (but in the opposite direction) that you are placing on the chair. If that weren't the case, one or other of you would move.

In many cases, but that sentence would have been really hard to write like that...

As we have measured (and make use of) both gravitational time dilation and that due to relative motion, I don't know what you mean by "nominal" or "theoretically". These are both real effects. 1. There are only minute amounts of dark matter around us. The density is probably something like 10-25 g cm-3 (in other words, close to a vacuum). So not enough to have any measurable effect. 2. There is no reason why dark matter would behave differently (i.e. negatively) with respect to gravity than ordinary matter. In fact, the only reason it is postulated to exist is for its normal gravitational behaviour. 3. There is no evidence of gravity that repels. 4. We already have a very successful theory of gravity, so what does your idea add?

You seem to be using the word "logic" to mean: "it makes sense to me". Well, science certainly did as it is a man-made invention. It took millennia for humans to develop the concepts and skills required for science. And then centuries for the process to be refined into something genuinely useful. You could provide evidence (you know, as in science) that there are animals that do science. As for the others, that probably depends on your definition of the words. For example, I doubt that any animals have a religion. But it is probably impossible to know. But feel free to provide some evidence, in place of assertions. Nonsense. No other animals have language. That doesn't deny evolution. Nonsense. You clearly don't have a clue how science works. Nonsense. They are ideas based on scientific theories. One is simply a description of a well established ("proven" in your dialect) theory. Others are hypotheses awaiting evidence for or against. If I have an unscientific belief in the existence of invisible pink unicorns, how is that going to become either science or religion? You can, of course, reference the science that demonstrates this effect? Or did you just make it up? (In other words, it is what you call "logic".)