Most experiments assume certain constants and if the results are within a certain variance, it is accepted as experimental error.

There is a study of chaos that state that some constant are not constants but a variable that fall into a define area with an average value. Sounds familiar? Generally this doesn’t matter unless you happen to get enough variances to line up in just the right order to cause a highly unexpected result.

I work with constants and assumptions but try to remember that they are just that. If one constant is proven wrong does that negate all studies? It doesn’t even negate all studies that use that constant.

As you first stated, gravity theory is not all that mature. It is hard to study the attraction of multiple objects since it can’t be isolated. Also our observation of the universe is pretty much from one point. One key element is time. Time for the most part is a measurement of an event. Light and atomic clocks are well like because they seem to be most constant observe event between two are more like systems. Keep in mind these are local phenomenon with “assumption” for the most part that it is the same somewhere else in universe. Change this assumption and one can get some interesting models. Another point, assumptions on the basic layer tend to rely on itself for proof of assumption.

Just like the assumption that the universal expansion must be slowing down but later was found to be increasing, doesn’t call for throwing out all research. Just have to rethink things and yes I know that not the same level as the gravitational constant.

Only when to two molecules are in close proximity of each other does it have the H2O+-H -O-H which cause a strong cohesive force\surface tension\intermolecular attraction. If they are on the other side of the galaxy then they are both H2O with attractions little difference from any other molecule. Water is not the only substance that has special bonding forces when in close proximately. Therefore my original point that some forces in nature are limited to a certain range is true.

Ok, yes when in close proximity 2 water molecules will take up this particular configuration. But that doesn't mean that the principle behind the attraction (electromagnetism) changes over distance, it just means that at a close enough proximity, that inter-molecule attraction has a significant enough force (at that distance) compared to the intra-molecule attraction to change their field orientation and bond the molecules together. But the principles of electromagnetism, like the charge of an electron, does not change with distance.

FYI I do believe Gravitation force is universals but I am open to the possibility that said force may act in a special way when in close proximity or for that matter there could be forces that we are not ware of. Intermolecular forces being one of them depending on the distance that is discussed.

Again, the gravitational constant (G) does not change over distance. The theories I mentioned above introduce an additional gravity-like force (or forces) who's effects are more noticeable at large distances than the effects of traditional gravity.

Science depends on the fact that these principles do not change over time or distance, which is why we call them constants. If someone believes that they are variable, then everything we know about science (not just physics) must be called into question.

Generally, it's better to just admit that you're probably wrong rather than re-write all of science to fit your beliefs. Evidently 53% of Americans don't feel the same way.

FYI I do believe Gravitation force is universals but I am open to the possibility that said force may act in a special way when in close proximity or for that matter there could be forces that we are not ware of. Intermolecular forces being one of them depending on the distance that is discussed.

Side note
H2O+-H -O-H.
The effect is twofold: The bonding is stronger and is directional. The directional nature of hydrogen bonding requires the two molecules to adopt a specific relative geometry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermolecular_attraction

A related quantity is the energy of cohesion, which is the energy released when two bodies of the same liquid become joined by a boundary of unit area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_tension

I'm not entirely sure I get what you're trying to say here.

I knew about the wheat but most people won’t acknowledge plant and animals as comparable. Also knew of the fruit flies experiment but most dismiss this as using high amount of radiation that doesn’t generally happen in nature to get flies that generally wouldn’t survive in nature. It doesn’t show that macro evolutiuon has happen but does indicate it is possible. I still say that fossil records are very incomplete.

The ring observation I was unaware of. Could be another explanation and does bring into question the so call biology breeding requirement but I chalk that up to the over simplication of many classrooms for learning purposes.

I have bookmark your reference, which I should have been able to find myself. I will find some time to research it so I can have more ammo for belief that evolution happen and yes I still consider most of what I believe in evolution as a belief.

I will admit that evolution is not a top interest of mine. I study physics and light/energy theory more than evolution. Unconventional warfare and IT technology is were I spend most of my efforts,

Side note
H2O+-H -O-H.
The effect is twofold: The bonding is stronger and is directional. The directional nature of hydrogen bonding requires the two molecules to adopt a specific relative geometry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermolecular_attraction

A related quantity is the energy of cohesion, which is the energy released when two bodies of the same liquid become joined by a boundary of unit area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_tension

Why have not chimpanzees evolved further?

Um, they have evolved further. Just like humans have, and just about every other creature on earth. Just because they haven't broken into 2 distinct species while we've been watching them doesn't mean they're done evolving.

FYI in case you haven’t read the policy, if the post is too long it usually won’t be posted. Also too many hyperlinks will prevent it from being posted.

True. Those posts will get screened out by the built-in filters and I will free the legit ones by hand. The only time I dump a post for being too long is if it's obviously a cut-and-paste being dumped on every blog post about a certain topic.

Cohesive force is not a simple attraction of molecules. Claiming that a water molecule is cohesive with another molecule on the other side the galaxy is ridiculous.

The cohesive properties of water is nothing more than electro-magnetic attraction. Like all electromagnetic forces, it's strength decreases with the square of the distance between two interacting bodies. Regardless of what you might think, two water molecules on opposite sides of the galaxy do still have an electromagnetic force between them. But at that distance the force is so small that all other forces dominate their reactions.

body evolves from physically weak to strong, resistant weak to a virus to strong resistant to a virus and so on. Some may carry over to the off springs and some may not. Surely you do deny that. One form of evolution doesn’t however prove any other form of evolution but only show the tendency of nature.

Physical strength achieved through exercise does not get passed to offspring. Antibodies are what give people acquired viral resistance, and are shared between a mother and offspring through shared fluids, not their DNA. Antibodies in the father are NOT passed on to their offspring.

However can you point to fossils collection that has a chicken like creature with half develop wing or even a snake mostly form leg. Tiny stubs that may have been legs at one time don’t count.

What is the substantive difference between a "stub" and a half-formed limb? Also, what would be the difference between an "arm" and a "wing"? You seem to be asking for a specific feature, then immediately following with a restriction that the specific feature wouldn't "count". It's like asking for a circle, then saying round objects don't count.

Can you give me one example of observed Macroevolution and don’t give me that all evolution is the same. It is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation contains several examples of natural and human directed speciation.

One more thing, you show how quick you are at jumping to conclusion without facts. We have not gone into any detail or even had that long of a discussion. Yet you have jump to conclusion of my study and understanding of a subject.

Again, it's nothing personal, but the fact that you tried to use untested multidimensional theories as evidence of a scientific disagreement about whether Newtonian gravity is consistent over large distances was proof enough that you didn't actually understand them. If you see someone trying to use a hammer to cut plywood, it's safe to assume they're not a carpenter.

Your smugness doesn’t prove jack about your points.

A body evolves from physically weak to strong, resistant weak to a virus to strong resistant to a virus and so on. Some may carry over to the off springs and some may not. Surely you do deny that. One form of evolution doesn’t however prove any other form of evolution but only show the tendency of nature.

You claim that the amounts of fossils are not scarce. I admit there are similarities between some fossils as there are similarities between today living creatures. However can you point to fossils collection that has a chicken like creature with half develop wing or even a snake mostly form leg. Tiny stubs that may have been legs at one time don’t count. If the fossils collection are as extensive as you claim then there should be 1000 fossils showing a gradual development of one of today’s species. They don’t. Instead the have fossils that have similarities but are great leaps in evolution. If I’m wrong point me to one of these collections.

I’m sure you think that the circumstantial evidence is more than that but you fooling yourself.

Can you give me one example of observed Macroevolution and don’t give me that all evolution is the same. It is not.