Strange

Why would the ball be magnetised? And what if it isn't? What if it is made of rubber, rather than iron? Why not do the calculations to find out? (Maybe you will say, "but that's why I am asking". But as you are rejecting answers you don't like, perhaps the only way you will be convinced is if you work it out for yourself.) Why do you think that? "Far away from a magnet, the magnetic field created by that magnet is almost always described (to a good approximation) by a dipole field characterized by its total magnetic dipole moment, m. This is true regardless of the shape of the magnet, so long as the magnetic moment is non-zero. One characteristic of a dipole field is that the strength of the field falls off inversely with the cube of the distance from the magnet's center." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_between_magnets#Magnetic_dipole_moment Your whole argument is about macroscopic scales. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. What evidence do you have that charge affects gravity? There is no relationship between mass and charge. That experiment is not worth considering. Arguably, it didn't make measurements accurate enough to confirm relativity. It is only of historical interest. Perhaps you should look at more modern experiments. The Pound-Rebka experiment is good (as an example of brilliant experimental design, if nothing else). But of course there are plenty of more recent observations of gravitational lensing, as well. You are not talking about the "electromagnetic force in general" (if there is any such thing). You are talking about magnetic forces sometimes and sometimes electrostatic forces, in a very confused way. By the way, this idea is not very original so it is not as if people haven't considered all the reasons why it doesn't work. But as you are not willing to accept what other people tell you (which is commendable) then you need to do the math yourself.

But why would we do that if, as you claim, climate change has nothing to do with us burning fossil fuels? (I only suggested it as a sarcastic response to your frankly idiotic analogy.)

We may be dealing with a ... whisper it! ... geocentrist ...

So your recommendation is that we should immediately stop using fossil fuels, rather than taking time over it.

Nobody knows what? The atmosphere is not a solid object and your question has no meaning. Here is an article summarising some of the main evidence: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/17/but-it-moves-how-we-know-the-e/ Edit: iNow beat me to it!

The experimental test confirm that quantum theory is correct and, as expected, cannot be explained by local hidden variables. There is no conflict. This is exactly what is expected of quantum theory.

I'm sorry but that is totally illogical. It is like blaming a diagnostic tool such as X-ray machines for not repairing the broken leg. Suggesting that there's a link between global warming and [record-breaking] winter rainfall may help ensure that adequate flood defences are put in place. You won't even admit that having better models of the climate is useful for improving our understanding of the probability of these extreme weather conditions. That is insensitive: "don't do the research that might help these people because it offends my Mail-reading ideologies".

This is akin to a strawman. Or just moving the goalposts. Or even a non-sequitur. No one is denying those things are important. If you want a discussion on flood management policies and technology (and the use of models to help with that) then start another thread. Although climate change is, potentially, very relevant to flood management (in the long term), flood management has no bearing on whether the science of climate change is correct or not. Why are you totally unwilling to discuss the topic you raised: that climate science is wrong because the models are too innaccurate?

No, that is not what it means. A constant scaling factor means that (apparent) recessional velocity is proportional to distance (Hubble's Law) as some basic arithmetic will demonstrate. If you get things receding faster than that (for a given distance) then the scaling factor has increased and expansion has accelerated.

Einstein never said that.

It fits both interpretations. That is why they are called "interpretations". Once you have measured the spin, you know the spin of both particles (because they are a single system, so it only takes one measurement to know the spin of both).

The trouble is, area is inches squared or meters squared or whatever. And perimeter is just inches or meters. Depending on the units of measurement you use the area of a given circle could be a number that is greater or smaller than the number representing its perimeter. For example, if the perimeter of the circle is 1 inch, then the area is about 0.08 square inches. But the same circle has a perimeter of 25.4mm and an area of about 51 square mm.

And that is exactly what Einstein's theory is based on. You seem to be attacking a strawman made of your own misunderstanding. The speed of light is invariant. And it is independent of the speed of the source. This is what Einstein said. And that is what the page you reference says (in a rather confusing way). So it looks like we all agree.

You have broken my irony meter. (And the troll detector is twitching...)

Note the use of "he'd" at the start of the sentence. This is short for "he would" which is used to indicate the counter-factual or irrealis mood because, as he goes on to say in the next sentence, this is NOT what happens. So he agrees with you that your statement is untrue. And that is why relativity works.

There are some reasonable explanations on that page. But there are some terrible ones as well.

Riiight... I want to meet you so I can give you the $1,000,000 which this insight deserves. I suggest we meet at 4.75 gallons. OK? That should tell you all you need to know. I don't know why GPS bothers with 4 dimensions when it only needs 1.

I searched that page for your sentence: "the speed of the beam of light as its fired from the car = the speed of the car + the speed of the beam". It isn't there. So please stop lying.

No (but I don't like his explanation and he confuses cause and effect). But you are making up quotes that don't exist on the page you reference and are, in fact, contradicted by it. And ascribing them to Einstein who never said them either.

Where, exactly, does he say that? Or even, where exactly doe the page you linked to say that?

I can't see any such thing there. Quite the opposite, in fact. Perhaps you need to read it in more detail until you understand it.

As you don't give your source, I am not sure it is reliable. Did you have a similar thread on this before: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89062-i-may-win-a-nobel-for-this-ive-disproved-relativity

Actually, he says the exact opposite: the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source (and of the observer). Maybe you should understand the theory before attacking it?

I assumed there were. Otherwise the question becomes a bit pointless.

But what does this have to do with evolution...?