Strange

Right. So that is why we have [latex]\displaystyle f = G \frac {M_1 + M_2}{r^2}[/latex] Oh, except we don't. That equation would give the wrong results. On the other hand, Newton's equation works pretty well. And that is only possible if the force is proportional to the product of the masses. And, apparently, pretty much how reality works as well.

The trouble is you are then basing your views only on evidence that agrees with what you already think (confirmation bias). You will either discard or adapt any evidence that disagrees with you beliefs. This is certainly not scientific and barely rational. But apart from that, there is nothing wrong with it. You can believe whatever you want and do whatever you want to support that belief. Just don't expect anyone else to take your beliefs seriously. You keep saying you don't have an "agenda" and yet you have admitted that your agenda is to cherry pick the evidence that supports your beliefs. Science is not a tool to get at truth. (I don't think there are any such tools. But believing in a creator god is just as valid as any other, I suppose.) Evidence.

Do you have any evidence that scientists have stronger beliefs about things than other people? As they are trained to be sceptical, I would guess the opposite was true. The trouble is that this example (and many others) do not involve getting an incrementally more accurate model - it is a case where one model is replaced by one that is totally different. But the old model still works. So you can't say the old model is an approximation to reality and the new one is a slightly better approximation: they are completely different (incompatible) descriptions.

That is not relevant to the point I was making. The fresh pair of eyes needs to provide a sound reason for the experiment; based on theory, for example. Otherwise your suggestion is no better than asking if the experiment has ever been done on a Tuesday by someone with blue eyes and wearing pink underwear.

I agree that censorship cannot work (with 100% accuracy). But what does your second sentence mean? If a country's laws make censorship legal, then it is legal. So I think I must have misunderstood what you meant.

I have experienced this, when doing tai chi and qi gong. However, I am convinced that there are entirely mundane reasons (e.g. to do with improved blood flow, etc) that do not require any magical and undetectable "energy". Similarly, I have been knocked across the room by my teacher apparently moving his hand less than an inch. No magic "energy" required, just precise control of forces.

We can only ever know what our senses and measurements tell us. As such, we can never know what "reality" really is. It might be identical to what we perceive and measure (in which case, what science describes is "reality"). Or "reality" might be completely different (or not even exist). By definition, we have no way of knowing: solipsism is completely unfalsifiable. You and your thoughts might be the only thing that exists. All the other people on this forum, the technology it uses and the latest scientific discoveries could be entirely created by your mind. On the other hand, there could be an external reality which we observe and build scientific theories to describe. Nothing can distinguish these (or any variations in between). But that makes no difference to the practice of science.

Apparently some guy in Michigan has rediscovered this "lost knowledge" (sarcasm, in case you missed it) http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/101571-man-moves-huge-blocks-easily-with-no-heavy-equipment/

That is not a theory. It is misinformed speculation (supported by the Daily Mail!) There is no evidence for any such event. We know this is not true. When matter and anti-matter meet, they annihilate and release a large amount of energy (Einstein's famous E=mc2). I gave up reading at this point.

I clicked the link. And even read the article. This is nothing to do with the "spectrogram of a particle in its waveform" (whatever that means) but is about generating high frequency pulses and sampling their spectrum. This is probably something that swansont would understand far better than me...

Science doesn't proceed by people doing experiments based on random guesses. You would need a sound theoretical reason and detailed (mathematical) predictions of the expected result. Also, of course, ISS is not a zero gravity environment. It would be a good exercise for you to work out how much less than Earth it is.

Thanks. That makes sense of it...

No. Mathematics is not based on a subjective view of reality. It exists independently of that.

That doesn't appear to have anything to do with chaos theory (which is about sensitivity to initial conditions making deterministic systems unpredictable). And clearly isn't true as some things are just impossible.

That is not a proof it is an (unsupported) assertion. I see no reason to think it must be true. What does "tear itself apart at the inconsistencies and pause at the incompletenesses" even mean?

The CMB radiation is homogeneous and isotropic (apart from minute variations). So everyone, everywhere will see it the same in all directions (if that is what being "at the centre of it" means). A really good analogy to understand why is the "surface of last screaming": https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March03/Lineweaver/Lineweaver7_2.html

I would say it is possible. But it seems a very inefficient way of getting oxygen to breath (if that is the purpose). And rather than burn the excess hydrogen and oxygen, it would be better not to create it in the first place.

This is quite a good article: https://aeon.co/essays/can-retrocausality-solve-the-puzzle-of-action-at-a-distance

Newtonian gravity is incomplete, but it isn't wrong.

Never mind proof, you don't even have any evidential or theoretical support, just random guesses. So it isn't "theoretical". It isn't even hypothetical. It is just fairy tales.

It can if your name is Velikovsky ...

So you don't think it is incomplete but you do think there are things we don't understand? That doesn't make much sense. Everyone else thinks it is incomplete because there are things we don't understand. GR says nothing about the creation of particles.

So, instead of a well tested theory which works, your are suggesting some unsupported beliefs based on an unknown explanation? Thanks, but I think I'll stick with science. Because, you know, it works.

Is there any evidence for any of that? Length contraction and time dilation (which are essentially the same thing) are a fundamental part of modern quantum field theory. One of the more obvious things it explains is the relationship between electricity and magnetism.

As you have not established that time is "the measure of how much change matter had undergone" then your conclusion is not justified.