Strange

Perhaps what you mean is, "if there is no existence then there is no movement".

It looks like you are talking about the two bodies orbiting each other. In which case, yes: the Sun and Earth both orbit a point in space, their common center of gravity. "Rotation" means to turn around an axis; I though you were imagining the two circles as gears: when you turn one, the other rotates. That won't happen without some sort of mechanical connection.

Why would it?

That is a completely different topic. Please start a new thread. The force is the same. But the acceleration depends on mass. So the Sun will move less than the Earth. As the Earth orbits the Sun, the Sun moves slightly: they both orbit their common center of gravity. Latex: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/3751-quick-latex-tutorial/

So he doesn't really know because every time I change my mind, he turns out to have been wrong. If he knows in advance all the changes I will make, then I don't have the freedom not to make them. If he knows in advance all the choices I am going to make, but then I make different choices then I show that he is wrong. Which is impossible. Therefore I can't make any choices other than the ones God knows about. Therefore I don't have free will. Or God doesn't know everything. Therefore he is not God.

But incomprehensible. I can: science.

So not just wrong, but meaningless. You have been given the correct equation for calculating the force. (And agreed that the current maths works.) So use it. The force between two magnets is much more complicated.

Almost certainly not. What is M? What is A? what is G?

Even if that were true you need to quantify the effect. The light, gravity and magnetic field from stars 4 million light years away might have an effect on the Earth's orbit based on just "reasoning". But if you work out how large the effect is, you will see it is so small it can be ignored. Without math your "reasoning", such as it is, is of no value. I answered it by pointing out that you need to calculate the sizes of the relative forces to see if there is an equlibrium.

No they don't. If you put two magnets close to each other they will be attracted to one another. Billions of people have experienced this over thousands of years.

What evidence do you have for that? And what do you mean by "starting to built up"; do you mean they are stronger today than yesterday? Stop just denying reality. It is not healthy. You cannot feel the magnetic field of the Earth when holding your magnet. Also: let go of your magnets and tell me if they still repel.

Apparently not. You seem to prefer your own opinion to facts. It is about time you changed your mind.

Reference, provide a link to. Pretty. But irrelevant.

<groan> Look at how weak the Earth's magnetic field is: it can barely rotate a sliver of metal on a low-friction bearing (e.g. a compass). Can you feel the effects of the Earth's magnetic field when you hold your magnet? No, of course not. The Sun is much further away than the Earth and so its magnetic field here is many millions of times weaker - it won't even affect a compass needle. Now, EMR (light) does have a measurable effect. For example, there are spacecraft planned that use solar sails. However, this force is still much, much smaller than gravity. And then there is the solar wind. But, again, much, much smaller than gravity.

I know you are not tying them together. But you are describing a situation where there is an attractive force between the Sun and Moon (i.e. gravity). I am suggesting you use elastic to represent this in your simple experiment. Alternatively, just let go of the magnets and see how much they repel. You are faking the results of your "experiment" (it no longer deserves the name) to get the results you want, rather then seeing how magnets really behave.

Nope. Let go of the magnets and they will be attracted to one another. The only reason they repel is that your forcing an unnatural configuration on them. There is nothing forcing the Sun and Earth into such a configuration. You mention an elastic band. Well, imagine that works in a similar way to gravity (it doesn't but near enough). Tie your two magnets together with an elastic band, stretch it and then let got: does it establish an equilibrium, or odes the elastic pull them close togther until the magnetism takes over and ... SNAP. He did the correct experiments to see what happened rather than bogus ones. What you are doing with the magnets is equivalent to holding a ball up in the air and yelling "antigravity!!!"

You are holding one of the magnets. Who is holding the Sun? Nonsense. Calculate the forces involved (it isn't hard). Then come back if you think you still have a case.

You have no basis for your opinion other than, as you say, it "does not compute in your brain". This is a problem for you, not for the existing theories. You either need to work harder at understanding the current models (and why they work and should therefore be accepted) or give up completely. Those are the only two sensible alternatives. Just making stuff up is a waste of time. It will tell you nothing useful. Put two magnets close together and they will be attracted to one another. They will NOT repel each other. You can confirm this for yourself after a quick visit to a toy shop. It is this sort of denial of reality that makes your "theories" so ridiculous. Calculate the relative strengths of the forces and you will immediately see that it is NOT correct.

Magnetism is not a repelling force. It is both attractive and repelling. If you consider the Sun and the Earth as being like a couple of bar magnets (with N and S poles) then the effect of their magnetic fields would be to rotate them so that their N-S poles are aligned, and then pull them towards each other. BUT. It would be very easy to work out the strength of the forces involved. If you do this you will find they are vanishingly small and have no measurable effect. What is the point of your "model"? We have a description of gravity that works extremely well. It includes the mathematics that allows us to make quantitative predictions which can be tested (and are always found to be correct) and allows us to make practical use of it in technology. You have some vague, half-formed ideas with no mathematics. This means we cannot check if your ideas work as well as or (hopefully, for any new theory) better than existing theories, or (more likely) don't match reality at all. The only reason seems to be that you are to lazy to learn and prefer to make stuff up. What is the strength of the force between A and B and how it is it calculated. What is the strength of the force between C and D and how it is it calculated. Having worked these out, please show that they match observations.

That is impossible. She cannot be in front of the man when the photons are fire AND when they reach the man. The photons take a finite time to reach the man. She is moving. By the time the photons arrive, she will no longer be at the same place. With this level of (deliberate?) misunderstanding, I don't know if anyone can help you. No. Exactly the opposite. They only arrive at the same time for the observer on the platform. Not for the person on the train. That is the whole point.

It is an intriguing opening. But I find the many little errors distracting (many others will not - although a publisher/agent would too!) For example: Unbeknownst is a bit obscure, maybe just "unknown" I think the punctuation should be: "Somewhere, unbeknownst to the rest of the world, sat thirty-five scientists..." While I have nothing against the passive voice in general, this does make me wonder who heard the footsteps. Maybe just "They heard footsteps..." Missing apostrophes in the next two sentences: man's and voice's. If you want to get quality feedback from other writers then I can recommend http://www.scribophile.com/ Anyway, good luck with your writing!

There are (at least) two reasons for this. One is that (as swansont) has already pointed out, we have a set of theories based on known forces. These work extremely well so there seems to be no room for a new force. Note that there are many cases where a new "thing" (from planets to fundamental particles) has been discovered because it was found that the standard, known physics did not match what we observe. That does not appear to be the case with Qi. The other is Occam's Razor (which is, perhaps, just a generalization of the above): don't create more entities than necessary. If you are proposing a new entity, then you need very good reasons to include it. Not just some anecdotes and videos. It has to be necessary; i.e. our theories will not work without it.

So I guess it takes a lot of effort to find ways of no understanding something so simple. This also confirms that it is not worth wasting my time attempting to explain to someone who is so determined not to understand. Because the train is moving. If you can't even grasp that, there isn't much hope. Even if there were such a thing as universal simultaneity, she would still have moved and so not be in front of the main when the light arrives. Exactly. And, for obvious reasons, it doesn't take the same time to get to the observer on the train. I thought about this a bit more in the context of your interest in the photon description of things. The train experiment is normally described in terms of the wavefront, but maybe an alternative view will help. Imagine two machines, F and B, on the platform. Machine F fires a single photon at the man on the platform when the front of the train is aligned with it. Machine B fires a single photon at the man on the platform when the back of the train is aligned with it. The man on the platform is half way between the machines. He receives both photons at the same time. He therefore concludes that the two photons must have been emitted at the same time (distance divided by speed). Now consider the situation where the same two machines fire the photons at the woman on the train. She is moving towards F and away from B. She is therefore also moving towards the photon from F as it approaches her. She is moving away from the photon from B as it approaches her. She will therefore receive the F photon before the B photon. She knows both photons travelled the same distance because they were both emitted when the front and back of the train were aligned with the F and B machines. She knows both photons travelled at the same speed (the speed of light). Therefore, the one she received first must have been emitted first.

Linguistics is a science. Linguistics contradicts your idea.

Thinking about things that bear no relationship to reality is easy (look at all the crazy theories posted on forums like this). Coming up with testable ideas that accurately describe reality is the hard work.