Strange

Which doesn't answer the question. It has the advantage of simplicity. But does labour under the not inconsiderable disadvantage of being wrong.

As all forms of energy cause spacetime curvature, this appears to incorrect. Which forms of energy does it not interact with?

Which part of "IT IS IN THE RELATIVITY FORUM" is hard for you to understand?

And, for the purposes of this thread, that choice is "relativity".

What?

So you agree that space is volume? Whether space is infinite or not is not the subject of the thread. Note that this makes no difference to any theories and so we can’t know.

There is no evidence of any higher force. Look at the equation for gravity, for example. There is nothing in that equation that represents a “higher force”.

Things function quite systematically without intervention. Unless you think that when you let go of an object your god has to intervene to carry it to the floor and ensure that it accelerates towards the floor at 9.8 m/s2 It seems simpler to allow the gravity and other forces to do their job without a god having to be involved in every little movement or change

coffeesippin has finally tested our patience too far and is banned permanently.

There is not free speech because we have rules about what people can say. If you don't like the rules, move on. There isn't much, if any, advancement of science here as it is a discussion forum not a research lab. People presenting the latest science, or even controversial science, are not labelled or banned. At least not for that. Some people who do that will persistently break the rules though. You know the sort of thing: hijacking other threads with their idea, preaching (either literally or metaphorically; both of which are against the rules), etc. You have run into problems with the rules because nearly eery thread you participate in gets dragged off into a discussion of your beliefs.

They wouldn't (except at the equator on the summer solstice, perhaps). In the northern hemisphere, the sun normally rises and sets south of you. (But I guess you don't literally mean 180º) But, of course, the line that bisects the angle would obviously also tell you where north was as well, just because it is opposite south!

! Moderator Note Discussion of black holes split off to here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117061-black-holes-split-from-so-youve-got-a-new-theory/

BlueGreyBrain has been banned as a sock puppet of thoughtfuhk.

Reg Prescott has been suspended for three days for repeated thread hijacking.

If we ignore aerodynamic effects that might give it lift (I have no idea if that applies to bullets o not) it would fall down at the same rate as if it had been dropped. Don't know. It is probably hard to calculate, but I would bet there are guidelines for different types of bullets. They might want to wear gloves, it will probably be hot from air-resistance.

1949. LOL What an execrable piece of logic. "Science isn't questioned because it is dogma and dogma means it is not to be questioned" A prime example of the fallacy of begging the question. Do you have any examples of scientific "doctrines that are not to be questioned"? Fundamental things that have been, and are, questioned (some leading to changes, others being repeatedly confirmed): the sun going round the Earth universal and immutable time and space the infinite and eternal universe conservation of energy the presence of a medium for light the fixed continents on the surface of the Earth nothing can move faster than light Lorentz invariance / Galilean relativity And, as swansont points out, every single experiment tests a whole swathe of other "dogma" because it is based on them and if any of them were wrong then the results would be different. Scientists don't do their work just hoping to confirm what they already know they also hope to prove some fundamental thing wrong and discover new science. That is where the rewards (personal and literal) and accolades are.

True. But showing that relativity is wrong would, itself, require more than showing one thing to be wrong (in part because so much else is consistent with / dependent on it). I haven’t read any Philosophy of Science for a long time but I think “Reg” may be misrepresenting him. For example: “the "paradigm" in Kuhn's jargon -- is, by and large, not challenged (or "questioned") at all. Rather than being subjected to severe testing, it is simply taken for granted. Normal science is extremely conservative, dogmatic even.” This is not dogmatism, it is pragmatism. When you want add two numbers, you don’t go back to set theoretical definitions of arithmetic. When writing software, one doesn’t worry about the quantum theory underlying the transistors in the processor, or even the correctness of the compiler. One takes the underlying mechanisms for granted. Until thing go wrong. Then you might have to consider all possibilities? Is it my code? Is the compiler buggy? Is there a bug in the processor caused by a transistor misbehaving? Similarly, most paradigm changing advances in science arise from “normal” science when people notice something odd (insert Asimov(*) quote here). And at that point all possibilities are open. For example, when the energy deficit that led to the discovery of neutrinos was spotted, one serious suggestion was that maybe energy was not conserved. That is the exact opposite of dogmatism. (*) Attributed to Asimov (by the Unix ‘fortune cookie’ program) but probably based on something said by Fleming.

Some people seem to think it is a house of cards (“if I can just prove this one detail wrong, the whole thing collapses”) whereas it is more like a complex structure of mutually supporting pillars and beams. Change one thing and a few other bits might need to be adjusted, but the whole structure is stable.

As we are still seeing fairly regular headlines such as “GR passes another test” (almost a century after the first experiment) I find it hard to understand how anyone could imagine science isn’t constantly being tested. (GR is just an example, there are similar tests of pretty much every area every day - at every level: we had a great science teacher at school who encouraged the students to think of new ways of testing what they had been taught)

Who said it was. Oh. Popular. So ... widely used?

Really? http://www.vogella.com/tutorials/JavaWebTerminology/article.html

Still not relevant. It seems pretty baseless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction (See the Criticism section)

This is (1) irrelevant and (2) not true. Huh!? Also untrue and, if possible, even less relevant. That is a trashy tabloid. I wouldn’t rely on it for accurate science reporting.

There is no evidence for these things and, arguably, there cannot be evidence for gods. On the other hand, science cannot disprove the existence of gods either. Although it can show that some of the things that gods are supposed to have done did not actually happen.

Has the Large Hadron Collider destroyed the world yet? http://www.hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com