Gravity = Magnetic Attraction

>Our models give us the answers we're looking for, therefore they explain reality.

You dope. You absolute dope.

There is no fusion happening in the sun; it's not "burning" anything; and it's certainly not emitting anything called a "photon".

Because you touch yourself at night.

We've kind of reached that point in this idiot thread.

Phase shift in the pulse perterbation. Can replicate easily.

I didn't say the stars were hollow; I said the sun was hollow. It's black inside. You can actually see the nothing inside the sun under the right conditions; i.e. sun spots.

Counterspace is quite real, whether you believe in it or not.

In fact, many things are quite real, whether you were born or not.

Space has no properties, and time doesn't exist, so no, there is no "warped spacetime" to account for the effects of electricity, dielectricity, magnetism and gravity on heavenly bodies. Or here on earth.

This is perhaps the most anti-scientific post in the entire thread. Almost every single word you just said is and has been proven incorrect.

I cannot tell if troll or not but I am seriously included to believe you're doing this on purpose

bend the path of a neutron with a magnet, fgt

>Our models give us the answers we're looking for, therefore they explain reality.
Strawman. My point was that they are better than some model which has never even been mathematically defined much less scientifically tested against observation. Asserting the Sun is hollow and then making no effort to objectify test that claims is bullshit.

>There is no fusion happening in the sun
Then explain solar neutrinos.

>it's certainly not emitting anything called a "photon".
Then explain how spacecraft are solar powered.

>Phase shift in the pulse perterbation.
No. Rice pudding electro-convulsion. Random words are not an explanation.

>You can actually see the nothing inside the sun under the right conditions; i.e. sun spots.
Wrong. Sun spots are still bright. They look darker compared the the bright photosphere but they are still bright.

>Counterspace is quite real, whether you believe in it or not.
Nice religion you got there.

So you are saying gravity is a force on each point of a gravitational field, not an acceleration?

>Explain how the force that keeps the Earth in orbit allows a butterfly to fly
butterfly mass = 10 grams
Earth mass = 5,972 * 10^24 kg
Earth radius = 6371 km
Distance between Earth and butterfly = 6371 km + 1 meter
Gravitational force between butterfly and Earth F = G m1m2 r^-2 = 0,098 N
So butterfly can stay in air either by producing force of 0,098 N or by orbiting Earth
Force between Sun and Earth = 3,5 * 10^22 N
So Earth can stay "in air" either by producing that force or orbiting the Sun

>Explain why there are no examples on Earth of spherical objects orbiting a much larger object
Easy. Just find me a 1 kg object and another object with...
>6000 km radius and 6*10^24 kg mass
>1 km radius and 1,5 * 10^15 kg mass
>10 meter radius and 1,5 * 10^11 kg mass
on Earth and I'll show you

Counterspace is not accepted terminology/theory by any of the largest scientific communities. It doesn't matter to me whether it's real or not.

Source: google search gives only crackpot sites with no prestigious academies within them.