Strange

But your assumption seems to be baseless. Which is why I suggest doing the calculations. Why not start with the simplest case of a single electromagnet switching direction? Why do you think it applies to magnetic repulsion? Why do you think there is a lateral component? You seem to be saying that gravity is / could be caused by electric (and/or magnetic forces). Gravity is (mainly) significant between massive objects, therefore you can't dismiss evidence form those scales as being irrelevant. (BTW I am using the word "argument" in the sense of "a series of statements made to support a position", not a violent disagreement. But I found out recently that not everyone uses it in this way.) In other words, you have no evidence. (Although what you describe sounds a bit like the Millican experiment to measure electron charge.) That seems to confirm that (a) electric and magnetic fields are different things and (b) moving charges produce a magnetic field.

Inertia. It is travelling along with your car and will continue to do so when you let go of it. This is the same thing that throws you forward when you put the brakes on: inertia means you want to keep moving forward at 60MPH even though the car is stopping.

I assume the OP has sobered up and/or got bored with this site now...

Stop making moronic strawman arguments.

Done.

Photos (by themselves) are not data. You cannot tell if matter is being ejected from the galaxy from those pictures. And you certainly can't tell how much. If you think otherwise, please show, in appropriate mathematical detail, what analysis you have done and what results you have come up with. Ideally, you will also provide some peer reviewed papers that agree with your calculations. More generally, you need to get away from "it looks like" as a form of argument. You also need to get away from sweeping generalizations based on the titles of papers and popular articles. Only then will you stop looking foolish.

Depends on the frame of reference. From your point of view in the car it will drop straight down. Someone standing by the side of the road will see it fall while moving forwards at 20 MPH.

So you have no data to support your claim. In that case, as you made it up, we can safely assume it is wrong (based on past experience).

They are measuring different things. In the classical world the nature of the coins in the boxes are fixed before you measure it (they are "real" values or "hidden variables"). In the quantum world, the variables (e.g. spin) are not determined until you measure them (i.e. no hidden variables). Each of these conditions produce different results. When we experiment with real coins we get the classical result. When we experiment with electrons we get the quantum result.

Apparently, this is called "coordinate acceleration": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_acceleration

I suppose if you are emotionally attached to an idea, however irrational it is, it can be very hard to admit you are wrong. Even to yourself.

Then you are not talking about physics.

From the theory that describes black holes. Not yet. Citation needed. Or is this something else you have made up to try and support your ideas? So we should abandon all the observational evidence because you made something up? There is a range of ratios for the mass of black hole and galaxy, so there is no conflict here. "in disk-dominated galaxies, particularly at low mass, there is no tight correlation between MBH and properties of the galaxy." http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v3/n12/full/ncomms2314.html

There are many ways in which you get different results from quantum theory than you do for classical theories. The quantum world does not follow classical rules, and there is no reason to expect it to. If you don't like the way this universe works, you are free to find another one.

The increasing speed of separation with distance is just basic arithmetic/geometry; there is no force involved. Therefore there is no acceleration. Edit: as we are talking about GR, the word "acceleration" means proper acceleration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_acceleration

Why can't you just address the science instead of all these idiotic avoidance tactics.

Acceleration requires a force. If you are in free fall, for example you are not accelerating even though your speed relative to the ground is increasing. Edit: as we are talking about GR, the word "acceleration" means proper acceleration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_acceleration If you want to change the way words are used and view it that way, you can I suppose. But, not surprisingly, you will get confused when you encounter the standard descriptions.

Why not?

Even if one can't be bothered to study the science of climate change in immense detail, there is the remarkable fact that every criticism of the science depends on logical fallacies, politically-based assertions and other irrational behaviour. This is why it is called "denialism" rather than "climate science that comes to a different conclusion".

Is it OK to do that with no discussion or explanation for why the link/quote is there?

Maybe this disorder doesn't have a name because it doesn't exist. Are there any examples or case studies of people with such a disorder?

You are picking some very dodgy stablemates here. But, given your indefensible views (1) perhaps that is hardly surprising. (1) Well, you refuse to defend them. And the only defence you can find are from novelists, right-wing tabloids, conspiracy theorists, Creationists and other assorted liars and nutcases.

I didn't think climate was a chaotic system. There are (short term) chaotic components, but my understanding is that climate models are based on large scale and long term thermodynamic models - complex but not chaotic. (I may well be wrong.) However, weather is chaotic. But weather forecasters still achieve accuracies far better than 90%. So being chaotic doesn't necessarily affect the accuracy of models, just how far out one can go.

So your stance is that of a deluded conspiracy theorist. At least we know what we are dealing with. You will be telling us next that you think "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is a work of serious scholarship. And what about those so-called Apollo landings ...

Also, gravitation lensing is observed in space, where there is no such effect.