Great stuff Jeff..
From what I understand the best gravity ideas on offer comes from string theory..well is it a theory..well after 30 years it has as much right to claim the title theory as I may for my "ideas"..still it goes on still it is believed it holds the answers..
Well lets go back and deal with what they say there... gravity is expalined by particle exchange at a quantum level...mmm exchange..at what speed... are they close to realising attraction wont cut it???
String theory requires that particles can change... say a photon to a glueon??? I dont need that stretch... and consider what super symetry (underlying requirement for string theory) ..anmd it demands that every "normal" particle has a super partner...can we see them yet??? er no..maybe CERN can fix that but so far it is a stretch...Looking at this approach it seems that the concept comes from the geometric possiblitie4s... and from that we can develop the dconcept of multiple universes..well we have to have multiple universe or supersymetry wont work..what comes first the chichen or the egg???... really..this is cutting edge science.. I dont buy it and will argue with anyone who has ...
Is it impertenant to ask...just because it is geometrically posible does any posible geometric built universe exist in reality??? I can draw a Unicorn but it dont mean they are out there...but if I drew then long enough and pretty enough no doubt there would be those who would be convinced that I have something...and they in fact must be opuit there... well there are no unicorns and still lots of drawing of them...they are a myth..multi universes are a myth...The premise od super symetry provides possibilities but that doews not mean those posibilities are real or exist anywhere in the universe...
I am a nut to present push well push is easy to envisage certainly a lot easier than the notuion of super partners and multple universes...
The Greeks had the Earth at the center and the planets going around in their own little circles..maths proved it..well the math was right but the posibilities was horribly wrong..
All I am saying finally is some of the stuff scientists accept simply because it is posible in math needs thought and review using a little reason...
why should the Universe be made up of 95% of stuff we can not see...only one reason because we need to make it alll work by attraction..well idfd so how does attraction work... think of how difficult it is to make attracti0on work at huge scales..galaxies..they can not..absolutely can not hold together by attraction...and there are many smart scientists who say as much... they see dark energy as the reason..mmm a pushing force it seems..
sorry to be brief and my use of slang..
Please hit me if you can this is only round one
alex
