Strange

Actually, it orbits the sun in a series of epicycles. No, I'm wrong, it orbits the galxy in an even more complex set of eipicycles.

Can you explain what aspects of that you do not find to be meaningful, then perhaps we can explain ti to you in more detail. Note that (2) is just a straightforward consequence of geometry: you can verify it with a few drawings of dots on paper. But if you want examples of things that don't seem to be meaningful: Is there any evidence for any of that?

Neutrinos do not have electric charge and so would not be affected.

I guess this could be a reference to the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum theory. I haven't looked at this in much detail but I don't think the entanglement is between worlds but the existence of many worlds is a way of explaining how the different possible measurements can happen - without upsetting Einsten! As with all interpretations, I don't really think this describes "reality" (whatever that means); in otherwords, I wouldn't consider the many worlds to actually exist, they are just a way of visualising what happens. (I know others disagree and would argue that these "worlds" are real, but this runs into philosophy and belief so ...)

You can choose either (or neither) - whatever is most convenient for your purposes.

That second one is great: short and to the point. (The first one is also a really good overview of the concepts behind the big bang model.)

Still got your martyr complex?

You say that. But then you say: Which demonstrates you don't have a clue. That is not what I said at all. Questioning established science is an essential part of the scientific process; it is done all the time and is certainly not stupid. What is stupid, is saying that we don't know anything. It is only people outside science who say that. And typically Internet crackpots more than anyone else. But as you say that you are not interested in learning anything about science, I guess there is no hope that you will ever understand what science really does. It is rather sad that you are so closed minded.

Yes. There is more than just black, white and grey. Similarly there is more than true, false and unknown. There are shades of grey and an infinite number of colours. Similarly there are degrees of confidence, levels of evidence, measures of accuracy, estimates of errors. To bundle all of scientific knowledge as "unknown" is just laughable.

Neither of those comments were from moderators or staff.

Makes you wonder how reliable Gabriel was ... "Um ... yeah, maybe that's it. Oh and something about women and education. I can't remeber if He was for it or against it. I don't suppose it matters; you decide."

Because it is wrong, perhaps. Obviously not. I can't even imagine why you would raw that conclusion. However, contrary to your claims, there is a lot that is know. There are a few things that are unknown. There are more things which are uncertain. But overall there is a lot we know, with a high degree of certainty. Highly debatable. But as this is not the philosphy forum, we can just ignore it as irrelevant. Theory means a lot more than that. Maybe English isn't your native language, but that is just a ridiculous statement. If a colour isn't black and it isn't white, what is it? I don't suppose anyone would disagree with that. But to use the word "unkown" to describe something known with a high degree of certainty is just stupid.

Evolution (the theory, rather than the fact) is probably better described as a familiy of theories. At the core there is the original Darwin/Wallace theory of natural selection. But since then we have had many extensions to this basic idea. It also builds upon a large number of related theories, such as those related to genetics, inheritance, development, ecology, sexual selection, etc. So, I would classify this as a complex web of inter-related theories, built upon many others. It is of course supported by a large amount of evidence, although much of that is statistical and hard to understand without a good background in mathematics as well as the relvant science(s). Much of the evidence is debated and there are many factions and sub-theories in the field. Although evolution clearly happens, we still have a lot to learn about all of the mechanisms involved. On the other hand, the big bang model is a straightforward solution the the Einstein field equations. As physics is much more of a "hard" quantitative science, there is a large amount of solid, irrefutable evidence for the big bang. There is thus almost no room for doubt about the fact of expansion nor the mechanisms involved. OK, maybe I exagerrate a little for effect. But basically, you are, once again, talking complete and utter nonsense. There is no "truth" in science. And theory does not mean unknown, it is as close to "true" as science gets. As shown by the examples of evolution and the big bang theory.

Yes, I was hoping to find something that the amateur could do at home. That was the nearest I could find.

No, it is almost the exact opposite of faith: you don't have to take it at face value because you CAN test it. For example: http://leapsecond.com/great2005/

And yet there is no evidence to support this. All the evidence is consistent with Galilean and Lorentz invariance. To riduculously high levels of accuracy. Ask Sungenis why he doesn't challenge the modern tests; why does he pick on specific, old experiments that had larger errors (for easily understood reasons). Could it be that he is being deliberately dishonest? This is why I suggest you employ a more critical approach to thinking about this: you accept the word of a proven liar who provides no hard data, and yet you ignore or reject hundreds of years of experimental confirmation of well-substantiated science. Why don't you apply the same standards to both sides?

This fact was first pointed out by Galileo, nearly 400 years ago. (I think he used the example of being in a ship; if you can't see nearby land you have no way of telling if you are moving or not.) Einstein refined the idea 100 years ago. I guess we have had time to get used to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance

Because he lies?

What does that mean? It is a book that was written by humans, copied and edited by humans, and is interpreted by humans. So it is no more "pure" than any other such book.

ALL experiments need error analysis. This is something I learned at school, never mind university. But these experiments are testing what is known more generally as Lorentz invariance. Modern experiments have tested this to much higher levels of accuracy than 1/6th. I think I have seen errors of 10-36 (in other words 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000th). So, although one might be able to criticize the original experiments (which were impressive at the time) we have moved on since then. As noted, it is the science. IF the data indicated that the Earth was in a special place in the universe, that wouldn't necessarily have any religious implications. There is no "divine revelation" needed to come to that conclusion; the writers of the Bible just wrote down what was "common sense" at the time. There are some things that are correct in the Bible and some things that are wrong. Common sense is sometimes right and sometimes it is wrong. (In this case, it appears to be wrong). And even if one considers the religious implications, it doesn't say anything special about Sungenis's oddball religion because many other traditions place the Earth at the centre of the universe (for obvious reasons).

Nonsense. (So much so that I stopped reading there.)

It's not as exciting as science. Measured it relative to what? We have measured the rotation of the Earth. In various ways, such as centrifugal force affecting weight at different points on the Earth, coriolis forces, Sun rise and sun set, and most recently by detecting "frame dragging" (the way the Earth drags space-time around with it). We have measured the movement of the Earth around the Sun. We have measured the movement of the Sun (and Earth) around the galaxy. We have measured the movement of the galaxy relative to other galxies in the local cluster. We have measured the movement of the galaxy relative to the CMB. What more could anyone possibly want! But, again, note that you can't rule out geocentrism. It is just a coordinate choice. But it is no better than any other. We choose the coordinate system that is most convenient for the job. Is part of the problem that you are looking for The TRUTH? You won't find that from science, I'm afraid.

I am not attacking you. I'm not sure why you think I am. Sigh. Because science builds models and test them The models developed by science pass those tests and generate useful results. Have any of Sungenis's claims been tested? No. Does he even make any testable predictions? No. Why are his claims plausible then? Lack of critical thinking. Why do you believe that the evidence supports his claims? Because he says so. Puhleeze. For god's sake: THINK. I just cannot understand why anyone would take unsubstantiated claims seriously. I'm sure they are. First I've heard about it.

No it wasn't. That sounds like worse than avergae science journalism (and most of it is pretty poor). But there are also plans for smaller, table-top even, accelerators using new techniques.

Still no explanation as to why you think multiverses are need though. They aren't. The big bang has nothing to do with the need for dark matter. And as we can observe galaxies moving away from us (I assume he pretends that is not true) and we can see the rate of that increasing (from our position at the centre of the observable universe) then you need to explain what causes that acceleration: that explanation has the label "dark energy". The observations don't go away just because they are inconvenient.