Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgs
Oh please, will you stop and read what you are saying. Where do you get the twice c from? If the sun exploded it would take 8 and a half minutes before the earth where to fling out of orbit - now how does your push gravity explain that!!! I feel that the members here are cutting you quite a lot of slack because they are polite and respectful individuals but your lack of any methodical modelling or explanations that are remotely observable with the world in which we live is starting to get tiring. I appreciate you do not have the maths background but please try and match your idea with some science or reasonable logical thought which will allow us to develop a test for this and if you can not , then stop with the idea that you some how have a greater insight than the true geniuses of physics. Now I re-state that is not a personal attack on you.
|
Dont worry I dont take things personal .. my presentation via writing is different to my in person approach.
The twice c possibility is indeed ridiculous..that is my point..however I think that an attraction system would need a message from body a to body b and then a message back from b to let a know what it is and what it is doing...so if we are to accept that gravity manifests at a speed of c this would mean that in the way I see attraction could only work..a message out and a message back finally we are faced with the message must travel back and forth at "twice" c so as gravity manifest a speed of c...
Now think about what I am saying..it is easy to read a bit and think I have lost it but try and think about what I am saying... attraction can not work..
Now as to reasonable logic I believe I use more than reasonable logic...certainly when we are asked to accept inflation as the saviour of the big bang and that all in effect "became" in a matter of some 30 seconds with nothing offerred in support I claim my logic is reasonable... where is the logic in multiple universes or supersymetry requiring a shadow worl of super partners???? my universe requires only the one universe..it requires no additional matter that we can not see (dark matter) ... I reject that I am not logical but accept the fast way I have to get these posts completed may leave others missing my point...
I like physics and respect it and those involved..this does not mean I am precluded from a view.. and given the time I will match, reject or accept any reasonable approach..but to think I am the only one guilty of speculation without support would be unfair on me...look at inflation.. where is the proof..Suskin has made a name for himself with string theory and yet this cutting edge of physics has no experimental evidence that I am aware of... Guth when offerring the life line to the big bang via his inflation "theory" which is no more than an idea..it is not a theory by any scientific definition.... level your sites at Suskin and Guth in the same way as you may care to level you sites at me and you will find they present a much larger target...now as I said I dont take it personal but fair go look at the leaders in physics who do far worse than me....
If you think I am harse answer me this..what qualifies inflation to be at the dizzy hights of a theory?? it was grabbed eagerly by the big bangers because they neede it and so in that case the harse demands called for before a theory can live were overlooked...if I am wrong enlighten me so I can move forward...
And point me to some place that gives an account as to how attraction works... I know of none and yet attracti0n stands as a given.. if it is to stand so..show how it works..and further as I get called upon to do...give some math in support...
Thanks for your input I enjoy it totally and dont worry that you may hurt my feelings..I have none ..hit me in the head with a brick and my only concern is what may be bothering you...
Keep up the fight for the other side as will be my position..
alex
