Science Vs Science Fiction

Can we please rename this thread in "Akson vs Science"?

Complete the Circle 1st

True or False

- Gravity has been PROVEN to exist in Space
- Gravity has been PROVEN to control all Orbits
- Gravity has been PROVEN to bend Light

Explain to me again why Planets cannot orbit stars coming from direct opposite angles, criss crossing, w/o Theorycrafting upon the original Theorycrafting. Thanks.

If NASA thinks they need to invent a new Planet-X/9 existence just to help explain the orbit of Neptune. There might be something slightly off w/ the original philosophy to begin w/. Just saying.

Well then I alrdy mentioned one that contradicts Gravity controlling orbits. How many do you need exactly?

Is Einstein's Cross still a scientifically proven Fact or do we need to pretend EM does not exist just for such to be Truth?

Completed the circle:

True or False

- Gravity has been PROVEN to exist in Space TRUE
- Gravity has been PROVEN to control all Orbits TRUE
- Gravity has been PROVEN to bend Light TRUE

Theory = Reality
F.a.n.t.a.s.t.i.c

Frankly, Akron this entire head illustrates then need for you to do some experiments testing these theories you are disdaining.

There are tons of books and websites aimed at kids that will let you start with the basics and then move on to the more complicated math.....but you need the basics first.



Astrophysics for kids
https://www.astrosociety.org/education/hands-on-astronomy-activities/

Read, practice, and experiment.

I alrdy know about Einstein's Cross. GottaBelieve.jpg

Explain to me w/ links to the rest. You dont even have to explain yourself.

Einstein Cross is a picture proving gravity bends light.

In Sci-Fi movies. Yessir.

Meanwhile we cannot prove here on earth that Gravity does such BUT we CAN showcase how EM can do exactly that which we vision Gravity as doing

what does "Un Sci-Fi movies" mean?

Went over that a while back.... blatant ignorance of Science while leaning very heavily on Theories.

Just link the Proof to the other Questions cuz I know EM bends Light alrdy as is.

this is reflective lensing in nature:



The trees seen in the water droplet are not inside the water droplet and the trees in the water droplet's reflection are not inside the water droplets reflection. The water bends the light in a way so that it appears as though the trees are inside the water droplet.

This is gravitational lensing.



The 4 big light dots on the outside are actually the same object. (a quasar) the light from the quasar was bent around a distant galaxy in the middle via lensing. similar to the water droplet. There arent 4 quasars. Only 1 and its directly behind the galaxy so without the lensing, we wouldnt be able to see it.

Well....

Bending light stronger than ever before by accelerating gravity electrons
Do you think they mistook EM for Gravity?

Light isn't the only thing around here that needs to get bent.

One time, I was playing basketball. When we were done, I spun the ball on the tip of my finger with such force, with such speed, that it attained its own gravitational pull. Everything in the park was quickly pulled into the ball, now broken down into itself into a black hole. I think the logic behind most of the questions being asked here was also sucked into this maelstrom.

the generation and propagation of gravitational and electromagnetic radiation are basically quite similar. This is a major point in demystifying gravitational waves. But, on a more practical level, gravitational and electromagnetic waves are quite different: we see and use electromagnetic waves every day, while we have yet to make a confirmed direct detection of gravitational waves (which is why they seemed so mysterious in the first place).

There are two principal differences between gravity and electromagnetism, each with its own set of consequences for the nature and information content of its radiation, as described below.

Gravity is a weak force, but has only one sign of charge.
Electromagnetism is much stronger, but comes in two opposing signs of charge.

This is the most significant difference between gravity and electromagnetism, and is the main reason why we perceive these two phenomena so differently. It has several immediate consequences:
Significant gravitational fields are generated by accumulating bulk concentrations of matter. Electromagnetic fields are generated by slight imbalances caused by small (often microscopic) separations of charge.
Gravitational waves, similarly, are generated by the bulk motion of large masses, and will have wavelengths much longer than the objects themselves. Electromagnetic waves, meanwhile, are typically generated by small movements of charge pairs within objects, and have wavelengths much smaller than the objects themselves.
Gravitational waves are weakly interacting, making them extraordinarily difficult to detect; at the same time, they can travel unhindered through intervening matter of any density or composition. Electromagnetic waves are strongly interacting with normal matter, making them easy to detect; but they are readily absorbed or scattered by intervening matter.

Gravitational waves give holistic, sound-like information about the overall motions and vibrations of objects. Electromagnetic waves give images representing the aggregate properties of microscopic charges at the surfaces of objects.

Gravitational charge is equivalent to inertia.
Electromagnetic charge is unrelated to inertia.

This is the more fundamental difference between electromagnetism and gravity, and influences many of the details of gravitational radiation, but in itself is not responsible for the dramatic differences in how we perceive these two types of radiation. Most of the consequences of the principle of equivalence in gravity have already be discussed, such as:
The fundamental field of gravity is a gravitational force gradient (or tidal) field, and requires an apparatus spread out over some distance in order to detect it. The fundamental field in electromagnetism is an electric force field, which can be felt by individual charges within an apparatus.
The dominant mode of gravitational radiation is quadrupolar: it has a quadratic dependence on the positions of the generating charges, and causes a relative "shearing" of the positions of receiving charges. The dominant mode of electromagnetic radiation is dipolar: it has a linear dependence on the positions of the generating charges, and creates a relative translation of the positions of receiving charges.

Obviously... why not go back and post your sources to your defemation of character rq about Tesla. Humor me.

That picture is caused by the differing indexes of refraction between air and water, not by outside electromagnetic forces; there is no such medium in space, so no, they didn't.

It's 100% known to be gravity that does it in that quasar picture above.

This is a THEORY of gravity bending light.
Please just show me the Science behind.
1st and 2nd Question plz post evidence.

We also have a space station in oribit, satellites, and have landed on a moving comet.





Edited

This thread continues to not disappoint. Do carry on.

ITT:

Really now?....