Strange

I started looking through it. There were lots of claims that there was proof but no actual evidence (beyond the opinions of some famous people, mainly from the past). Where are the experimental results, the peer-reviewed data, in short, the science?

Huh? If it can't be falsified, then it isn't a (scientific) theory. So it doesn't mean it is wrong, just irrelevant. Indeed. Newtonian gravity is "falsified" by observations such as the degree of gravitational lensing, precession of Mercury, etc. But that doesn't mean the theory is wrong, just that it is not always applicable. There are very few theories which are actually shown to be wrong, such that they are no longer used. Phlogiston is about the only one I can think of. Oh, and the Steady State Universe. And ...

Really? That makes it sound useless to me: no use to aliens and no use to humans. Why is that encouraging?

It means the vacuum which contains various fields, zero-point energy / quantum fluctuations, dark energy, etc. The relationship between the vacuum energy and the cosmological constant (dark energy) is one of the big unanswered questions. (Which I suppose is what is meant by "disturbing".)

The reason that EPR said there must be hidden variables is because they could not accept non-local (i.e. faster than light) interactions. Allowing faster than light hidden variables doesn't really solve the problem. (Of course, there isn't really a problem at all; it was just that EPR, and you, have an emotional dislike of the nature of the universe. As Feynman said, if you don't like the way this universe works, find another one.) Wanting to be in a lower energy state is what allows particles to decay but it is not a cause. Neither can they lose energy (because they are quantised. If a muon, for example, sits there for a few microseconds and then, at some point, decays there is nothing that caused it to decay. It just happened. What does that mean and what is the evidence for it? As quantum teleportation is based on a theory with no hidden variables then this seems like a baseless assertion. Can you provide any theoretical justification or references to support this claim? Why is this not possible? Can you provide any theoretical justification or references to support this claim? That is very vague. As there are no known causes, it sounds like you are just wishing that there were several that somehow made things look random. Wishful thinking is not science.

So you have nothing original to say? All you can do is copy things from other sources with no explanation. I assume there is no explanation or comment from you because you don't have a clue what any of it means. You are just trolling. That is why all you can do is repeat the same things over and over.

Pointless quotes in ludicrous fonts and no explanation deleted. Why do you find this question disturbing?

1. That is a very weak electric field. Much larger fields are created every day with no apparent unexpected gravitational force. Unless you have some experimental results of your own to report, as you are the New Faraday? No? Oh well. 2. That electric field is outside the atmosphere (from the same source) and therefore could not contribute to the surface gravity of Venus. 3. Current theory (e.g. Newton's law of gravity) works on the basis that only mass contributes to gravitation. If mass were not the only factor, then the theory would not work as well as it does. So it sounds like your hypothesis is not just baseless but is falsified by the evidence.

... you also need to quantify the force that you think will be produced. This is so that the experimenter knowns what sort of spring or other means will be needed to detect the force. It also allows other possible sources of error to be evaluated. There are a lot of systems that use spinning flywheels or gyroscopes. Some of these are precision devices so if there were any such force it is not large. How large do you predict it to be?

How would you use that to calculate the precession of Mercury, or the change in the path of light as it passes a mass? Can you do anything useful with this? Is it testable? No. So it is not even a scientific hypothesis.

I think you have that the wrong way round. We can use changes in matter to measure time. We can also use changes in things which are not matter to measure time. You can also build useful models of universes with space and time but no matter or energy to see how they behave. This "time is change" thing comes up regularly and always goes the same way. It is a bit like deja vu. The same arguments made on both sides. "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." Douglas Adams

This makes no sense. Either you did it or you didn't. No.

Quoting another anonymous crackpot does not really help your case.

Yes, you can find evidence that is consistent with the theory. But that doesn't "prove" it because one day you may find some other evidence that shows it to be wrong in some way.

It isn't unknown. It is about 9.77 N/kg: G * mass of Earth / (radius of earth+30000 feet)^2 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=G+*+mass+of+Earth+%2F+(radius+of+earth%2B30000+feet)%5E2 The rest of your post is incoherent nonsense.

Please provide some evidence to support this.

That doesn't appear to have anything to do with the question. If x = -y then x2 = y2 therefore -x2 is negative. x2 is always negative (unless x is complex).

And therefore, the current theory would appear to be correct. The answer is, of course, no. But perhaps not for the reason you think. Work out the difference in gravity between the surface of the Earth and a plane at 10,000m. See if you think it will be detectable. OK, as I assume you are not capable of doing that, the answer is that gravity is about 0.3% less at that altitude. You would not feel that. However it can be easily detected by accelerometers, atomic clocks and other suitable instruments. You, on the other hand, seem to be one of those who think that just making up any old rubbish is better than actually learning (which is hard work, I know).

Burden of proof: you are the one making a crackpot claim so it is up to you to provide the the evidence and/or theory to support it. But, to get the ball rolling: we only have evidence of gravity as an attractive force. Newtown's law of gravitation only describes it as an attractive force. Over to you.

Please stop posting nonsense. The inverse square relationship does not start at the top of the atmosphere.

Of course it wouldn't. It would fall the rough ocean and the Earth due to the pull of gravity.

Reminiscent of Johnson's refutation of Bishop Berkeley's claims about the nonexistence of matter: http://www.samueljohnson.com/refutati.html

Please stop posting nonsense.

Gravity does not push. Simple enough for you?

The question is essentially political. So outsourcing (in America) is clearly good for the countries where the outsourced jobs are. Not so good, possibly, for those whose jobs have been replaced.