[xelasnave]

Thanks Robert.
I really get the impression that General Relativity is a cash cow for a large number of people.

Consider how long the theory has been around and yet grants still are dished out each year every year to "refine" some aspect and then the scientific media has what I find a most annoying headline.."General Relativity proved right again".

I once asked a scientist if GR could entertain a particular proposition and his reply was in effect GR cant go further its all been done.

A couple of years ago I went through all the grants made for research in the various universities in the USA and it became rather clear that a lot of folk owe their pay check to GR...and then you get stuff like Ligo and Gravity Probe B which really do no more than provide another headline for the science media "GR proved right yet again".

Really what else can you say about Ligo and Gravity B Probe...

And as to Ligo I think few realise the use they make of "templates" to classify a signal...if you dont know please take the time to read up on it...ok I am a layman but to me it sounds like hog wash.

The emphasis on GR seems to prevent progress in determining how gravity works at a particle level.

Surely the most important thing we could research is how whatever particle works to produce gravity but I sence that the GR crew are happy not to have any competition to GR.

Mass tells space how to bend? Well how does this work..a nuts and bolts explanation is needed not magic.

Honestly GR is like taking measurements of a race car going around the track and compiling a large data set but having no idea about the motor or the gear box that causes it to run around the track.

And I dislike that GR has been enlisted to prove the big bang when DrA constructed his formula to fit a static universe ( which is closer to a steady state than a big bang).

How he rolled over to accomodate the cosmic egg...I have said it many times..his greatest blunder was his greatest insite...I cant do math but I bet tweaking the CC may well do away with DM and DE ☺

Because its dressed up as science folk tend to forget the big bang is after all just cosmology and although very sophisticated it attempts to do no more than the pagans envisaging a cosmic egg to explain creation...

Still I guess we need something to drive the cosmology but the more I think about it the idea of a big bang creation ( which indeed it only hints at) is for me unbelievable.

And the hunt for truth is always about looking for evidence to support the big bang which seems so very wrong to me...like that nonsence at the South Pole.

No doubt in the years to come some observation will be presented as evidence of inflation and all folk like me can do is offer arguement from incredulity. ..but I think if most folk understood what inflation asks us to accept they would not buy it either.

It surprises me how many folk do not know what inflation dictates.

Just stop and think about it..the universe grew from a basket ball size to a size greater than the observable universe in under one second...or as Neil DeGrasse tells it..in a zillionth of a zillionth of a zillionth of a second...what speed did this boundary expand...mmm I dont know but it must be many many times faster than light..well its instant for all practical purposes...so the universe grew from a basket ball to more than we can observe in an instant..no wonder the church supports the idea.


Maybe I am just a mug but that just sounds impossible.

Alex