Strange

This makes sense because we know that force and acceleration are related (f=ma) and it takes a force to make something change direction (or, equivalently, you feel a force when, for example, you are in a car turning a corner).

I assume you mean, "yes, in some cases". (Otherwise I might have to dismiss your comment...) Incidentally, I always assumed "close minded" was an error (for "closed minded") but apparently it is the more common spelling. The descriptivist in me is going to have a very hard time coming to terms with that. But I don't want to be closed-minded about it.

I look forward to seeing the detailed quantitative predictions from your model that we can compare with observation.

There might be. It depends on the size and speed of your centrifuge. It will be tiny, for any realistic scenario. No. Obviously not. For the reasons you have been given. You seem to want to create some unrealistic / impossible scenario. For what purpose? From what I remember, that is the case. The rotation of the ringworld also kept the people on the ground.

You don't provide any figures for size, speed, etc so it is hard to be specific. (You really should do the maths to work out what happens.) But compare it to the air on Earth. It is pulled towards the Earth by gravity. But it is still a blanket several miles thick. So your entire tube would be full of air that is ever so slightly denser towards the outside. Therefore your astronaut would be carried around by the air and be thrown towards the outer wall. Does the higher air pressure at the surface of the Earth push you into the sky?

As far as I know, if the neutrino does have a magnetic moment (through its interactions with other particles) it is far smaller than we can measure currently. So I don't think they have been "found" to have a magnetic moment. But yes, they need to have mass (which they do) to have magnetic moment. For example: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9907432.pdf Your theory should, perhaps, predict the magnetic moment of these particles. As well as mass, spin, charge, etc. "me" not "I". You tell us. It's your theory.

Getting slightly off topic here, but your comment about being asked to review papers reminded me of this wonderful article (by the wonderfully named Underwood Dudley) about math cranks and his responses to them. It ends with some great insights into the sort of people who come up with these theories. http://web.mst.edu/~lmhall/WhatToDoWhenTrisectorComes.pdf

No, don't hold back like that. Tell us what you really think!

That's a shame. We will really miss your charm and wit. Hurry back, y'all!

I assume it is because you are incredibly funny. Are you and your friends all sitting around the computer giggling at how hilarious your comments are? What a great time you must be having.

Or maybe even having a one-to-one session with a suitable health professional. Is this all just practice for your political career when not answering questions will, of course, be a valuable skill. On the other hand, being reasonably polite to your audience is usually considered a good thing as well (notwithstanding Donald Trump).

Many great scientists were, and are, religious. That is not an obstacle to getting ideas accepted. One of the founders of the big bang model, Georges Lemaitre, was a Catholic priest. There are many other examples.

While it is true that both mass and energy contribute to gravity, in general the effect of energy is insignificant. This is a very common idea. It comes up every few weeks. There are many reasons why it is obviously wrong: Gravity depends on mass; there is no obvious relationship between charge and mass. Electric charges attract and repel; gravity only attracts We can block electric fields; you can't block gravity The strength of the electric field from a dipole falls off with the third power of distance (I think); gravity falls of with an inverse square law And so on

This is rather ambiguous. Do you mean a Sun-sized planet made of the same stuff that the Earth is? In which case it would have a much greater gravity than the Sun because it would weight about 4 times as much as the Sun (the Earth is much denser than the Sun). Or do you mean the same mass as the Earth, expanded to the same size as the Sun. In which case it would have much less gravitation than the Sun. In fact, by a remarkable "coincidence" it would have exactly the same gravitation as the Earth (at a given distance). Basically, the force gravity is determined by two things: mass and distance. Density doesn't really come into it (part from affecting the distance of the surface from the centre).

Is that a typo or a very clever pun?

Well, bless your heart. Of course you are. I am absolutely certain that no one doubts that for a moment.

I was interested. I asked if it was based on Stephen Wolfram's work. As always, you changed the subject to avoid discussion. Only because you make them a waste of time by not, you know, discussing anything. Bye. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

That is an interesting hypothesis. If you want anyone to consider it (and maybe you don't) then you would have to produce evidence to support it. I don't think anyone has insisted that you prove anything. But if you want your ideas to be taken seriously, then you need to provide more than just an assertion. But maybe you don't want anyone to take your ideas seriously. And that is OK, too. You are of course, free to reject science. But if you want anyone else to consider that the big bang model is wrong, then you would need to provide some evidential or theoretical support for your argument. But if you don't care whether others accept science and you are just here to publicise your own prejudices, then carry on. You are doing an excellent job.

The other difference is that the scientists conclusion is based on evidence, while the religious view isn't. But I don't think Simon will accept either of these statements. It is not opinion or guesses. It is well tested theories based on evidence. Your repeated lies about that don't really help your case. How about: prove them wrong? Show us that you really do have a model, and that it fits with the available evidence.

The requirement is that your model makes testable predictions. I guess it could be a scale model or an analogue, rather than mathematical. But your model would have to be accurate enough to be testable against what we measure. That is a challenge but not impossible. The effects of binary black holes are determined by simulating a model, rather than by pure mathematical trickery (because the mathematics is too complex). For example, you might say "gravitational waves from a pair of black holes behave like the ripples in a pond caused by two sticks stirring". Well, they don't so that model is wrong. Go ahead, show us how gravitational waves would behave in the changing density of material in space. How they travel differently between galaxies than within them, how they are affected by suns and planets, etc. When you have done that, we can compare your predictions with experiment.

Gravitational waves?

This is a triple straw man. Science does not say the universe was created. Science does not say there was an explosion. It isn't accepted just because "Einstein said so". And you wonder why people become impatient with your repetitive rants? If you demonstrated a mature and open-minded willingness to engage in discussion (even if you didn't learn from it) then you might get a bit more respect. As it is, you always start out with a series of false statements, then claim that any attempt to explain your errors is an insult or disrespectful, and start throwing insults around.

No one knows that. But there is little reason to believe you have. However, you have previously demonstrated a very limited and flawed misunderstanding of the relevant science, even at a basic level. And you refuse to disclose your theory. So there seems little reason for anyone to take you seriously. p.s. I gave you an up-vote for that post because, despite sounding like it was written by a hormone raddled 14 year old, it is the closest thing to a rational argument I have heard from you.

Sounds a bit like pilot wave theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave But to make your idea testable, you would need to provide a lot more detail.

Except you aren't sharing anything. So it seems you are just here to make a fool of yourself with continued lies and insults. Of course not. And we don't care about your beliefs. Blimey. Schoolyard taunts. What next, "You smell"?