Strange

Much better put, ajb.

How does that work? No it doesn't, by definition. You seem to think time dilation is due to distance rather then relative velocity. This is incorrect. What does any of this have to do with the subject of gravity?

Can you show us the statistical analysis that indicates there was a concentration of erathquakes at this time. Can you show us the calculations, based on the mass of the Earth and the distance to ithat it could have had significant tidal effects on the Earth; i.e. greater than the Moon, for example. There are other possible explanations. Can you tell us where in its orbit the comet was at this time? One possible explanation is coincidence and cherry picking. As you provide no hard data, it is impossible to say. But based on what we know about comets, that one can be almost certainly ruled out (without any data to support it). Not without some data.

No, they are not. Imagine you are on a train, travelling at a modest 200 mph. If you let go of your pen, it doesn't go flying down the carriage at 200mph, it falls straight down (from your point of view). Similarly, if you jump in the air, you won't be thrown against the back of the carriage at 200mph, you will come down where you land. Ditto canonballs. This makes no sense at all. Flights in one direction are typically slightly faster because if prevailing winds. But apart from that, the speed of the plane relative to the ground is the same in both directions.

You don't get much more pedantic than logicians.

Yes, because of the much greater kinetic energy at the higher speed. This is why larger and larger accelerators have been built. Higher energy allows smaller sizes to be probed. http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/beamline/27/1/27-1-panofsky.pdf (But note that you can't accelerate neutrons as they are uncharged.)

Do you have any evidence for that? Or did you make it up? Good. Then you should be able provide some objective data to support your claim. In what way is adoption unnatural? As far as I know all societies have done it since ancient times. Even animals do it. So instead of objective data you rely on lies and misrepresentation. Please keep this sort of vile bigotry out of the forum.

Things follow geodesics (the generalization of straight lines) in the absence of any force because that is the minimum energy path. I don't know where all that comes from, but it isn't anything to do with GR. And doesn't even seem to have much to do with science. This is very precisely defined. It is the geometric relationship between events in space-time (note: not just space) that is curved. Unfortunately the definition requires some pretty advanced maths. Gravitational waves are the dynamically changing curvature of space-time. They are not an "energy field" and they don't force things to follow geodesics. I don't know what you mean by "dramatic possibilities" of "syfy" (sci-fi) but time dilation is a real effect that is used in technology and engineering.

Massive particles are caused to move by some force. Massless particles always move at the speed of light.

That isn't what it says. It says, virtually all galaxies. I assume they say that because we can't make a definitive statement about all galaxies without looking at every single one. I'm not sure if there are any galaxies that have definitely shown not to have a supermassive black hole at the centre. But apparently there is some doubt about M85: http://www.universetoday.com/89952/is-m85-missing-a-black-hole/ Because it is all galaxies (as far as we know). Perhaps because you are wrong. Elliptical galaxies are generally thought to be formed by the merger of spiral galaxies. "A supermassive black hole is thought to lie at the center of these ancient galaxies." http://www.space.com/22395-elliptical-galaxies.html Well, I don't know if it us the most important. But it is certainly important. Yes. I think everyone knows that. That is why it is an area of intense research.

It is known as well as any other scientific theory. It is the only model so far that is consistent with all the evidence. While it is true that in the period immediately before and after the time we see them, those stars might have danced a jig or turned into chocolate that sort of random speculation is not really helpful. We can only extrapolate from the evidence we have. When that evidence is consistent with the predictions of theory, I'm not sure what the point is of inventing non-existent "what if" scenarios that have no basis in theory or evidence.

And yet the timestamps and ordering of posts in this thread would appear to prove you wrong. Currently, yes.

I assume your question is "Why reinvent Newtonian gravity?" In other words, why do we need relativity to describe gravity? If so, there are a number of problems with Newtonian gravity some of which Newton knew about and some which were discovered later. For example, Newton's "force" has to act instantaneously over any distance. He knew that was implausible. Since then more accurate astronomy found things like the precession of Mercury that couldn't be explained by Newtonian gravity. This is, as you say, not time dilation. It is just a difference in speed. However, time dilation is a real thing even if we are not normally aware of it. But we now have clocks accurate enough that we have to take time dilation into account between moving objects (e.g. satellites orbiting the Earth, particles going round the LHC). Also, a clock at the top of a mountain will tick slightly faster than one at the bottom because of gravitational time dilation. In fact, we can measure this difference over very small distances: between one step and the next on your staircase. That is a key point. Newtonian gravity doesn't allow for a delay. Einstein then suggested that the light speed delay is the same for all observers. From this, it is straightforward to show that time and length must change depending on the observer. While that path is caused by the curvature of space-time, what you are seeing in that (nearly) circular orbit is not that curvature. For example, if something falls to Earth in a straight line, that is also due to the curvature of space-time, but you perceive it as the effects of a force, rather than a curved path.

According to this paper, active black holes can stop star formation: http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1608 So the picture is certainly not simple and a lot more research is needed (and being done). However, you won't get a good understanding by watching videos. You might find more useful info here: http://search.arxiv.org:8081/?query=black+hole+%22star+formation%22&in=

It is a well know fact that pink unicorns tend to be depressed, while the green ones are more outgoing. From this it is a logical conclusion that blue unicorn poo is more nutritious.

I haven't. But I gather it is an idiomatic description of the legal principle of laches. Citation needed. By whom? No. You are mixing up legal idioms and pseudo-mathematical mumbo-jumbo to come up with yet another of your famously ludicrous conclusions.

I'm sure it is not being ignored. Quite the reverse. I'm sure it will when there is sufficient evidence. Your comments about the video suggest that it is already part of (some) current theories about the formation of galaxies. So what needs to be "reset"?

Do they? Where is that quote from? (Or did you make it up and put quotation marks around it to make it sound authoritative? It just sounds wrong (and even if you repeat it, sequentially, it will still be wrong.) Are they? (And "quantum" does not mean random.) From my perspective, your posts are becoming increasingly incoherent.

The effective temperature (and therefore rate of energy loss) of Hawking radiation is inversely proportional to mass. So even a small black hole with the mass of the sun would not have lost a significant amount of mass over the lifetime of the universe. And would have gained mass from other sources. In fact, to have lose mass a black hole must have a temperature greater than the CMB, which means a mass less than that of the moon.

I think it is a really interesting concept try and use languages (in the formal sense) to explore solutions to the Rubiks cube. But I don't have a clue how you would go about it... It occurs to me that you might come up with a solution that is really interesting but which is NP complete (these sorts of matching/satisfying algorithms often seem to go that way).

Well put. Or, as Tim Minchin put it: "You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine" Although it looks like the OP is using the old "just asking" ploy to promote his own wacky anti-science beliefs.

A unreviewed paper by Mr Trivedi to test Mr Trivedi's "biofield treatment" ? How about some independent, peer reviewed evidence?

You are not trying to tell us how you are right, just that you are right. I'm sorry that helps nothing. With no maths and no (objective, quantitative) evidence all you have is a vague story that bears no relation to science or the scientific method.

Can you show the calculations where your predict the mass difference between a proton and a neutron?

Or even one thing, as a start!