[Slick]

I don't think so.

Here's the "argument": 'If the sun were to suddenly disappear, it would be unrealistic for the earth to continue to orbit nothing for another 8 minutes.'

I see some problems with this line of thinking:

- First, these same people wouldn't have a problem thinking that the earth would still see the sun for another 8 minutes as the light continued to travel to the earth. But somehow gravity seems different to them. It's probably because we have indisputable proof of the speed of light and the layman can witness its effects. Gravity has yet to be actually measured, which is why I said above that it was theorized to travel at the speed of light (based on principles). Scientists find measuring the speed of gravity acurately very difficult, but they are trying; and the prevailing theory is that it travels at the speed of light under the limits of the theory of relativity. So for some people, no-can-see, no-can-believe. And that's fine with me.

Second, under our current understanding of physics, the sun just can't disappear. So, it's one of those garbage-in-garbage-out arguments. We know of no way to instantaneously remove mass, so of course there is no theory about what happens next.

Last, orbits of planets around the sun are actually ellipses. Also, the sun is actually pulled and moved slightly by each planet. The sun's "orbit" is less than its diameter so it kinda just wobbles a little in response to each planet, but we can measure it. Since our source information (light) travels at the speed of light, we can't see instantaneous effects, if they existed. In a practical sense, the speeds of planets, the sun, the solar system, the galaxy, the local supercluster, etc., are small compared to the speed of light so it limits our accuracy of measurment.

I don't think I am avoiding the subject material. The credibility of the author is certainly important. For every theory out there, there's somebody who is convinced it is wrong and has a counter-theory. Yes, occasionally these people who we consider to be nut-cases sometimes, rarely, are the true geniuses who are actually correct. This doesn't mean that I should believe every counter- or conspiracy- therorist. The process is well established for objectively presenting a new theory, testing it, and adopting it if valid. People with these outlandish theories all claim the same thing: I can't prove it because the scientific community won't grant me any $$$ to use their XXX (equipment, satellite, telescope, collider, reactor, fill in the blank). Most of these guys are just that, nut-cases who are hell bent on trying to get their inane experiments (and their wallets) funded. The scientific community is portrayed by these people as extremely closed-minded, status-quo, establishmental, and rigid. My impression is that this is as far from the truth as possible. The reason why these nut-cases are ignored is because their theories are fundamentally flawed. The last thing the "real" scientists would want is to be on the wrong side of the fence if/when a new correct understanding of the universe is proven. Good theories are tested every single day. Experiments are being done as we "speak" to learn the fundamentals of our universe. That is what the XXX (equipment, satellite, telescope, collider, reactor, fill in the blank) *is* being used for.