0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I am sure that, if I were to talk to Brian Cox, the message would make perfect sense. He might be expected to know what he's talking about. He has a track record - as his sponsors would agree.
Do you not understand that this means that your theory isn't right; it never was right; and it never can hope to be right?
No, it will take more than that.
Shortly after you ignore the question and change the subject I think.
This new core-centered theory of gravity predicts a clean uber-energy source of the future found in the form of meteor core material embedded in the crust from earlier impact events. Even a possibility of such a new energy source should excite the speculation of this new idea.Or would this just lead to an even bigger 'rat-race' for civilisation? Hopefully not.
Let's forget about the mammoths - which sleep standing up in any case because their knees lock just like horses.I ask again; do you (i.e. could you) explain this theory in such a way that you connect actual cause and effect? Your Science is even more woolly than the poor dead mammoths!The best sign of someone who hasn't got a clue is that they constantly change the subject instead of pursuing the one in hand. No more red herrings please.
You are surely aware that it is possible to measure the gravitational attracive force between two lumps of steel. Which bits of the balls are supplying the force?
If you get the data for the amount of force between these two balls of steel and their sizes, I will scale them up to the size of the Earth and Moon and show you that the result produced would not be enough to sustain planetary motion.