"...gravity, the force..."

Newp. Gravity is not a force. It does not travel, it does not reach from one mass to the other. You fundamentally misunderstand gravity, which is simply the shape of spacetime in the presence of mass.

If you drop a stone into a pond, the water moves out of the way of the stone's volume, not it's mass. It that volume a force? No, it is not. In just the same way gravity is not a force, but merely the shape of spacetime that is in the presence of mass. It doesn't travel. Gravity waves travel, across the shape of spacetime, but those are not gravity itself, but the shape of spacetime rippling in response to masses changing.

"...it also changes with weather..."

That's because mass is moving, thus effecting the shape of spacetime from different places. It's beyond our ability to calculate, but the principle is quite simple, once you understand gravity isn't a force, but the shape of spacetime effected by mass within it.

"...Hawking has made many theories... many of which can never be proven because if true, they would hide the truth from ever being known. (circular logic that collapses on itself)"

I disagree. Stating that fuzzy black holes have no hair proceeds from the basis of understanding that gravity isn't a force at all, but gravity wells exist and do affect forces, such as particles eruption from the background vacuum of space, which is a quantum effect, and if they do that at the Schwarzchild radius of a black hole, it becomes 'fuzzy' or surrounded with a halo of particles that don't mutually annihilate, as matter/antimatter pairs usually do in open space, because sometimes one of the particles falls into the black hole, and isn't available to annihilate the other one.

However, black holes have no hair, or don't actually emit particles themselves. They're just fuzzy because all the particles produced near them aren't mutually annihilated, and thus don't become photons, but remain matter or antimatter, depending on which fall into the black hole. There's more to it, because that mutual annihilation produces light, which reveals the black hole, and yada yada, but you could read and understand the book 'A Brief History of Time' he wrote, which is masterful because it's written for laymen, and not physicists, yet accurately describes physics in laymens' terms.

It's not a hole in gravity, or the theory of gravity, but simply an affect of gravity on quantum eruption of virtual pairs from the quantum foam.

Newton's math was very accurate. However, the cosmology of an aether was completely bollocks, and the accuracy of the math kept people believing in his cosmology for centuries. He was very, very smart. Independently invented calculus, and I can't even teach myself calculus with a textbook. Leibniz also independently invented calculus, so he was smart too, but I digress.

What Einstein's theory says (whether he came up with it himself or not) is that the affect of gravity on an inertial frame, a geometric region, is not discernibly different than a force, such as acceleration. This is how he differed from Newton, because he dispensed with the aether that had by then been proven not to exist (by Michelson and Morley) that showed light moved in a vacuum, not an aether. The theories of relativity dispensed with the aether, and the Newtonian calculations were still quite close, in fact close enough to still be used by rocket scientists calculating orbits, because they're massively simpler than relativity calculations and plenty close for orbital calculations.

"The overarching premise that science must be atheistic..."

Is complete BS. Science simply has no means of proving anything, and can only disprove things that are false if we can devise experiments to disprove them, like Michelson and Morley did, or you could do, if you're smart enough. How can you disprove God? Despite all the prattle from aetheists, they have no ability to do that. They merely bloviate because they're convinced they're smart. But they're just clever monkeys that have evolved to estimate the trajectory of a rock thrown at fleeing prey, so they can sometimes eat. They're just as lucky as us they can tie shoes. They have hubris, which is a curse on science, because it's utterly unmerited. Neither Atheists nor any other religionists have any means of experimentally disproving God, or any such thing. Full stop.

"...the theories that are taught today have been thoroughly scrubbed."

Because they have no ability to disprove shit in that regard. They have no substantive comment to make regarding any such thing, so them not deranged with their own euphoric reasoning don't make any such comments, as is proper to men humble enough to know they have nothing to say about it.

"...lifters..."

My friend, you're confusing two completely separate things, the shape of spacetime, and forces. Just because they appear to do the same thing does not make them the same thing. There are many demonstrations of how electric energy can produce enough energy to overcome the tiny influence of gravity on the tiny masses shown in the pic.

Please don't succumb to the hubris of the nescient. You should know you don't know enough to claim to understand. What little I have explained here should caution you to reckon appropriate humility, because I am not a physicist, and I know better than to claim I understand physics, as I have confirmed through discussions with physicists, such as @lemouth.

He is a physicist, and if he deigns to respond to the ping, he'll likely set us both straight. What little I understand of physics reveals to me you are way off in your grasp of it, and if you were sufficiently humble to listen, you could learn from them competent in these matters, which I am decidedly not.

Thanks!