Kinetic gravity theories discussion, from a strange claim thread

[CraigD]

Moderation note: the first 9 post of this thread were moved from the strange claim threadGravity is a particle that pushes, because this discussion is not about the original strange claim thread’s pushing gravity particle theory, but about old and present day theories about gravity carrying particles.

 

It seems to me that the writer is suggesting that gravity is particle that exist outside a mass, instead of in it, and it pushes all masses towards each other. I think thats why he says that gravity pushes not pulls.

 

This idea is quite interesting. Although doesn't explain some things.

It – the idea that gravity is caused by collisions, that is, pushing by otherwise undetected particles (Le Sage – see below – termed them “ultramundane corpuscles”) – is not only interesting, it’s among the oldest and most thoroughly studied, as is its failure to satisfactorily explain even simple gravitational phenomena.

 

Generically, this idea is known as “kinetic” or “corpuscular” gravity. The most well known such a theory is “Le Sage's theory of gravitation”, after papers from 1748 to 1784 by physicist George-Louise Le Sage, though an essentially identical theory was publically presented in 1690 by Nicolas Fatio.

 

These old writings are easy to understand. 17th and 18th century physics papers are, in many ways, typically more understandable to the non-specialist reader than present day ones. I encourage anybody not already familiar with them to browse the wikipedia article and its links linked above. These writings, especially their pen-and-ink illustrations, can quickly and effectively convey the essentials of kinetic gravity theory. A lot of discussions of these theories, such as in thread like this one, appear to me to be mired in confusion about what their central ideas essentially are.

 

More difficult to understand is why, despite their attractive simplicity, kinetic gravity theories have never gained more than the most speculative scientific acceptance. In short, they’re not accepted because nobody has been able to get them to work – that is, produce a collection of precise formulae based on them that accurately predict the observed motion of bodies under the influence of gravity, cannon balls, planets, etc.

 

Why this is hard to understand, I think, is because to understand why nobody has been able to get them to work, you must pretty much be able to follow, or personally write, a lot of complicated mathematical physics.

 

A result of this “easy to imagine, hard to prove” contrast is a steady stream of physics enthusiasts “rediscovering” kinetic gravity, then presenting it with an appeal to people with the necessary mathematical physics skills to prove. People with such skills, however, are usually already familiar with the long history of failures of such attempts, so at best try to present these old works to the enthusiast. All to often, however, a “I don’t understand how to prove it, but am convinced by the beautiful simplicity of the central idea that it must be true, and provable” breakdown occurs at this point, and discussion degenerates into something that gets moved to “disreputable archives”, such as hypograpy’s strange claims forum.

 

A further difficulty in Also, as there are many possible places where someone trying to get a kinetic gravity theory to work reaches an unworkable problem and concedes failure,

 

Let's go back to the tire and the arrows scenario. All the archers are shooting at the tire hanging from a tree.

You say

So, if all the archers are shooting at the tire, then after the arrows get to the tire, they head off in a new direction. If we surround the tire with archers then there are as many arrows coming OUT of the tire as there are arrows going INTO the tire? Right?

 

So, it looks like poor Joe is being hit equally by arrows that come OUT of the tire as he is by arrows going INTO the tire. Joe is being pushed in opposite directions equally and should feel no force at all. Right?

So why is Joe ONLY hit by arrows heading INTO the tire?

This sort of scenario illustrates, I think, the essence of kinetic gravity.

 

In short, not all the arrows that hit the tire pass through it (or, to be strictly representational of Fatio and La Sage’s theories, not all the arrows exit the tire at as great a speed as they entered), resulting in a tire-sized “shadow” in all directions in the proximity of the tire. The side of Joe facing the tire is in this shadow, so is hit by fewer (or slower moving) arrows than his other sides, so Joe is accelerated toward the tire.

 

I’d like to try answering a few questions and address possible misconception not directly related to kinetic gravity theory that have appeared in the past few days in this thread:

Curious what does current theory state about the behavior of "antimatter", does it bend space in the same manner as "matter" ?

Current theory (the Standard Model) states that that a fundamental particle of antimatter (positron, antiproton, etc) has nonnegative mass but a charge opposite their non-antimatter partner particle. Current theory (General Relativity) states that effect of matter on spacetime is related to mass, not charge. So current theory states that antimatter has the same “bending” effect on space that ordinary matter has.

The wave/particle concept of gravity is still odd, why would the gravity particle be attracted to mass/matter ?

Although a gravitational force carrying particle (boson) has been given a tentative working name for inclusion in it – the graviton - the Standard Model has not yet been successfully expanded to explain gravity, so can’t yet answer questions about gravity.

How about electric/magnetic fields, they are observed by the interaction of particles with the "fields", but what are the fields ? a bending of space ? If so then why are electrons attracted to positive charge ? :eek_big:

According to the Standard Model, fields can be explained as interactions of particles. The particle responsible for electromagnetic force, such as between an electron and a proton, is the photon, the same particle responsible for light and other electromagnetic radiation. When carrying electromagnetic force, however, photons are always virtual (not observed other than by the interaction of the affected particles), while when constituting light, they are actual, interacting with any particle in their classically predictable path.

 

The concept of actual and virtual particles, while central to quantum physics, is a difficult on to understand.

Dark matter is simply molecular hydrogen, nothing curious, look here: ESA

While the ESA:ISO article you cite certainly does propose that dark matter (“dark” in this context means “not detected by direct observation”) is simply ordinary hydrogen gas, it’s over 10 years old, and is only intended to present tentative evidence that this explanation will, with further observation and analysis, prove correct.

 

To the best of my knowledge, in the decade since this article was published, this hasn’t happened. In particular, while neatly explaining the missing mass problem (which concerns the motion of cluster of galaxies and the entire visible universe) “dark matter is ordinary matter” hypothesis has, despite much effort, failed to be supported by an explanation of a critical problem, the galaxy rotation problem, so isn’t yet the “winner” among the many competing dark matter hypothesis.

 

This is not to say that someday a compelling solution to the dark matter problem will not disprove the hypotheses predicting that it will consist of something other than ordinary matter (ie: hydrogen), rather than the various strange kinds of matter they predict (eg: axions, neutrinos, WIMPs), only that this has not yet been accomplished, and perhaps will require a subtle but radical change in our understanding of gravity, such as MOND

Dark matter, anti matter are all matter, namely positron eg. a kind of matter naturally.

This post suggests confusion about the term positron.

 

The positron (a good standard symbol for it is [imath]e^+[/imath] is the antiparticle of the electron ([imath]e^-[/imath]). Since the mass of the electron or positron is only about 1/1826 that of the proton ([imath]p^+[/imath]) or antiproton ([imath]p^-[/imath]), their significance in any solution of the missing mass problem involving hydrogen ([imath]H = p^+ + e^-[/imath]) of antihydrogen ([imath]\hat{H} = p^- + e^+[/imath]) is small.

 

Also, although positrons occur commonly in nature (for example, they are emitted by radioactive substances injected into thousands of patients every day to measure brain metabolism with PET scanners), neither they, their more massive companions in antihydrogen, antiprotons, or hypothetical (to the best of my knowledge, none have yet been observed) antineutrons, are believed to constitute more than a minute fraction of the total mass of the universes light or dark matter. The reason this is believed is that, because they are so common, we know a great deal about the products of their interaction (annihilation) with ordinary matter (highly energetic gamma rays), and have high confidence that if there were substantial amounts of antimatter in some volume of the universe, we’d see clear evidence of it as it annihilated with even the most tenuous surrounding ordinary hydrogen gas surrounding it.

[prometheuspan]

Would you kind to try understand the hidden interpretation, and after that I may get your apology for this naive education..

 

So once again, last time:

1. Iv made a rough estimation about speed of gravitons:

2. Velocity of gravitons are roughly 5 magnitudes higher than speed of light.

3. I have bring in an abbreviation, a short label, that is c2.

 

Comprehend ? Read carefully, educate fewer.. You are right with math, naturally, but Im use this labeling despite you are the umpteenth expert who comment that. Im glad if this is your biggest problem with pushing gravity. This labeling expressive enough to demonstrate much more speed than light (but not mathematically correct, you are right again, I know it clearly)

 

You have four bars worth of people not too sure about you, I wonder how that happened?

 

1. Gravitons don't have a fixed speed, and since they are not traveling inside of our universe, in most senses they can't be thought of to have any velocity at all.

 

2. Most Gravitational phenomena would seem to happen much faster than that, and in fact

gravity waves appear to perpetuate themselves instantaneously without delay.

 

Gravitons might slow down that slow to interact with things, or hop across a brane, but they must by nature be moving at nearly infinite velocity relative to our universe.

 

3. In fact a graviton is a paired unit of virtual particles, one of which is outside of the universe across the brane event horizon, and one of which has a very weak interaction

across the brane.

[prometheuspan]

Where does the particle come from?

 

every real particle in the universe that has mass also has a graviton field, composed of

a very large number of gravitons.

 

 

And why does it aim for mass?

 

because it originates from mass.

 

 

Regarding your "arrow" analogy, who's doing the shooting?

 

I'm lost there, i wasn't paying that close attention.

 

surely, we seem to have gone from a very...er... improbable graviton apologist to a less improbable one...

 

I hope that my version is continuing to move in the direction of plausibility.

 

 

And why would this particle bypass the moon to hit the Earth?

 

its so small and virtual it moves through everything.

 

 

 

"I think a dent in spacetime is much more descriptive of the observed phenomena."

 

absolutely true. And the wave function of light is also a lot more descriptive of how light actually behaves. Yet, there are photons.

 

Same thing.

[prometheuspan]

A few questions for OP author.

 

i know. i but in.

 

1. Does your model predict that gravity particle push or pull antimatter ? (for example, the matter proton and the antimatter proton--does gravity particle effect both the same ?)---same question for matter and antimatter quarks.

 

No, because they have different mass, and thus different graviton fields in the micro

environment.

 

2. Via quantum theory, does the gravity particle also have wave function duality--that is, would you claim there is also a gravity wave that would be measured if you looked for gravity wave and not gravity particle ?

 

Absolutely, just like light or other quantum phenomenon there is a particle/wave duality.

 

3. Is there an antigravity particle ? It is known there are antimatter electrons (positrons) and antimatter quarks and antimatter nucleons---is it the same for gravity particle ?

 

Technically, all gravitons are composed of a dual set of the gravity particle and the anti gravity particle, a lot like an atomic nucleus has both electrons and protons, but simpler

than that for particles and much more complicated than that for spatial geometries, since

these are virtual particles outside of our universe having a weak interaction across the brane.

 

 

4. If the answer to question #3 is yes, then more questions (4b,4c,4d).

4b. What happens when gravity particle and antigravity particle collide ?

 

They can't do that, its impossible given the exotic geometries they exist in.

 

 

 

4c. What effect does antigravity particle have on matter proton (and quark) ? Push or pull ?

 

my model says gravitons pull. I can't imagine how somebody would come up with things

the other way. The anti gravity particle is entangled with the gravity particle but only

the gravity particle has a weak interaction across the brane in conditions with which we

are familiar. However, quantum gravity is more directly related to the anti particle.

 

 

 

4d. What effect does antigravity particle have on antimatter proton (and quark) ? Push or pull ?

 

Gravity always pulls, even the gravity anti particle pulls in all conditions.

 

The reason for this is exactly the wave function as described by classical gravity theory. Gravity distorts space and time,

and things tend to want to fall into the low/high pressure zone.

 

Anti gravity particles simply dimple the brane in the opposite direction, but its still a dimple, and from 3 d perspective,

its still a four dimensional dimple projected into 3d space, so from our perspective its all the same.

[prometheuspan]

 

Gravitation is spacetime geometry without a single instance of observation to the contrary. There is no evidence for quantized gravitation or propagation of gravitation by a massless spin-2 tensor boson (required by the math). Gravity is not gravitation.

 

true, but lets look at it the other way. just as a thought experiment, IF gravity were in fact due to a particle, what would the properties of that particle be?

 

I have no proofs and I'm not going to argue that I'm a dispensation of divine information,

 

nor tell you it all just came to me while mowing my lawn or meditating on my belly button.

 

The interesting space for me in this conversation is the thought experiment to assume

that there is a graviton, and then to take what we do know of physics in order to come up with a model of such that fits empirical data and known observation.

 

If in your opinion I fail to do that., I would hope that you would continue to entertain the thought experiment with me, and, we can both agree in every other thread on the forum that theres no such thing as a graviton.

 

Deal?

:naughty::(:naughty:

[Pyrotex]

I don't believe in gravitons.

My non-belief is so strong, in fact, that it causes all gravitons to not-exist.

Now there aren't any.

But I still feel gravity.

[prometheuspan]

I don't believe in gravitons.

My non-belief is so strong, in fact, that it causes all gravitons to not-exist.

Now there aren't any.

But I still feel gravity.

 

that was quite remarkable, but hardly in the spirit of an open source colaborative thought experiment.

 

maybe you have heard the Alice in wonderland quote.

 

Its always good exercise to believe 5 impossible things before breakfeast.

 

As long as you stop believing in them before you eat, no harm, no foul.

:confused:

 

can we play my game now or do you need me to assure you we all understand its make believe more?

true, but lets look at it the other way. just as a thought experiment, IF gravity were in fact due to a particle, what would the properties of that particle be?

[CraigD]

Technically, all gravitons are composed of a dual set of the gravity particle and the anti gravity particle, a lot like an atomic nucleus has both electrons and protons, but simpler than that for particles and much more complicated than that for spatial geometries ...

:confused: Where are you getting this from, prometheuspan? – the bit about gravitons being composite particles consisting of a particle/antiparticle pair? It seems to contradict the conventional meaning of the term “graviton”.

 

The conventional description of a graviton – that is, its description in Standard Model terms – is that it’s elementary (that is, not composite) gauge boson, and its own antiparticle (which can also be phrased “has not antiparticle”)

 

I think it’s important, before going further, especially in a strange claims thread rehashing a very old and mostly abandoned “particle that pushes” gravity model (see post #96 for details), to agree on precisely what the word “graviton” refers to, even if its precise properties, or even if its does or doesn’t exist, are unknown.

 

“Graviton” is a placeholder name (a name for something that may not actually exist) for a Standard Model gauge boson that caries the gravitational interaction. If successfully fit into the SM (which hasn’t yet been done, but hasn’t been proven impossible to do) it would be the 5th elementary gauge boson, after the photon, gluon, W boson, and Z boson.

... since these are virtual particles ...

I think there’s a serious problem with defining gravitons as always virtual.

 

“Virtual particle” has a precise meaning in the quantum mechanics (the formal language in which the SM is expressed), in short “can’t even in principle be individually detected.” Put a bit less shortly, it’s impossible in principle to describe precisely how, or even how many, virtual particles resulted in a given measurement outcome. For example, the scattering of 2 electrons fired toward one another, which involves their exchange of virtual photons, can be explained by any of an infinite number of precise diagrams, for which there is no way to decide that one is more true than another.

 

As best I can tell, though it’s practically unfeasable, it’s not in principle impossible to design an experiment to detect an individual graviton. (see Can Gravitons Be Detected, Rothman & Boughn 2006). So, like photons and other gauge bosons, if gravitons exist, they may be real or virtual, depending on circumstances.

... outside of our universe having a weak interaction across the brane.

Bringing up branes reveals an important bit of the history of theoretical efforts to fit gravitons into the SM, in that so far the most promising efforts appear to be via string/brane theories. However, none of this theorizing that I’ve read (granted only in popular books like Smolin’s) this doesn’t imply that all gravitons are “outside of our universe” (that is, in another brane), only that gravitons are, according to some string theories, able to mediate interactions (also called “carry force”) between particles in different branes. It’s been suggested that this helps explain why gravity is such a weak force, and why there appears to be an un-accounted for gravitational attraction between nearly empty space and all the visible objects in the universe, a possible solution of the “dark matter/missing mass” problem.

I don't believe in gravitons. ...

At the moment, neither do I, nor as best I can tell be reading a sampling of them, do most of the people with enough math and experience in physics to have a credible first-hand opinion (alas, with my sorry background, I’m just a spectator and speculator to the real theoretical work at hand, though learning little bits day by day, who knows, someday?).

 

I also don’t not believe in them – again, an agnosticism sadly gained almost completely second hand.

 

Perhaps “I’ll believe it when I see the experimental evidence” lay-types like me will someday get to see some graviton detections in the planet-sized detector around a dwarf star like Rothman describes in his paper linked above. Even if it didn’t detect gravitons, it would be a pretty cool bit of engineering to see! :)

 

PS: Given that this is the strange claims forum, but we’re having (or trying, at least to have) an un-strange physics discussion, if there are no objections, I’ll move these recent old theory and graviton-related posts to a respectable new thread in the math and physics forum.

[prometheuspan]

:confused: Where are you getting this from, prometheuspan? – the bit about gravitons being composite particles consisting of a particle/antiparticle pair? It seems to contradict the conventional meaning of the term “graviton”.

 

I have read a lot about QM. I am merely entertaining a thought experiment proposed by somebody else 100 times kookier than me.

 

I'm not taking that any more seriously than a thought experiment and i make no claims

at all on the correctness or etc of such claims.

 

I am just telling you, in my opinion, if these theoretical particles existed, how i think

it would work.

 

The difference, i think, between me and previous participants pro tachyon is that i understand this is a mental exercise, haven't reified any schema, studied formal conversational logic, don;t practice magickal thinking as a habit;

 

But still find this line of reasoning to be a fascinating line for discussion.

 

In short, i am not technically qualified ,really to say anything about QM. Sociology or civil engineering, yes.

 

but it is a fun game to play as long as we keep it real hmm?

 

besides, i am not attached to my version; i just named andtamed the game.

 

the name of the game is;

 

assuming that the hypothetical particle "graviton " is real, explain to us what it is and how it relates in the universe.

 

its obvious the original game player was ...sleepwalking. we can all continue to sleep walk and groan or we can take it up a notch?

 

 

 

 

 

The conventional description of a graviton – that is, its description in Standard Model terms – is that it’s elementary (that is, not composite) gauge boson, and its own antiparticle (which can also be phrased “has not antiparticle”)

 

yeah, and then it goes on to tell us it mitigates a force relationship.

 

but that doesn't wash with a lot of other things.

 

 

I think it’s important, before going further, especially in a strange claims thread rehashing a very old and mostly abandoned “particle that pushes” gravity model (see post #96 for details), to agree on precisely what the word “graviton” refers to, even if its precise properties, or even if its does or doesn’t exist, are unknown.

 

right, you and i and this forum reality check number one.

 

gravitons are unproven and hypoethical particles often hijacked in science fiction and pseudoscience.

 

good. any more disclaimers? might be a list?

 

 

“Graviton” is a placeholder name (a name for something that may not actually exist) for a Standard Model gauge boson that caries the gravitational interaction. If successfully fit into the SM (which hasn’t yet been done, but hasn’t been proven impossible to do) it would be the 5th elementary gauge boson, after the photon, gluon, W boson, and Z boson.

 

 

see, in my model this is almost right but this is a a virtual particle which exists a lot like an

electron cloud as an energy cross created by the core mass entanglement.

 

what if gravity is just the energy that got mass entangled that won't stay put inside the entanglement box?

 

lets review another core tenet of whacko supersimplifed pop me in my own delusional simulation physics.

 

i will call it a omni ciom axiom to amuse me.

 

mass = entanglement.

 

its particles orbiting each other like we think of atoms or planets all over again.

 

before that entanglement its pure energy moving at light speed and existing by its time

frame at infinite clock stop stnd still. From the photons pov it is born and dies in the same moment because at light speed time stands still.

 

where is it traveling then?

 

don't you see? its just drifted somewhere and been pulled back via the entanglement.

 

Theres an entanglement cloud. We call it gravity. thats the waveform.

 

entanglement causes a distortion in space time fabric,...

 

mass causes a distortion in space time fabric...

 

you tell me?

 

same difference isn't it?

 

 

 

I think there’s a serious problem with defining gravitons as always virtual.

 

yes, they have to be weakly interacting so at the reaction moment they are real.

that happens when they actually intersect real quanta in the sparse tree along an angle

emanating away from a virtual singularity.

 

 

“Virtual particle” has a precise meaning in the quantum mechanics

 

yes, please don't be mad that i'm abusing the term horribly. I just thought it was a neat idea and it happens to be the way you guys think.

 

i never actually bought your version. lol

 

 

(the formal language in which the SM is expressed), in short “can’t even in principle be individually detected.” Put a bit less shortly, it’s impossible in principle to describe precisely how, or even how many, virtual particles resulted in a given measurement outcome.

 

a problem made even more difficult if these are particles orders of magnitude smaller than

all previously seen particles and moving in a reactive ray cloud at superluminal velocities

with only an atto second yank every time they knock into the next entanglement episode.

 

For example, the scattering of 2 electrons fired toward one another, which involves their exchange of virtual photons, can be explained by any of an infinite number of precise diagrams, for which there is no way to decide that one is more true than another.

 

yes. so. the nice thing about gravity is that it likes to be much more ordered along its centripetal function. If only all of the forces would behave so well eh?

 

 

 

 

As best I can tell, though it’s practically unfeasable, it’s not in principle impossible to design an experiment to detect an individual graviton.

 

well, okay, but, no. the problem is they are like primitives using the concept of fight in all problem solving instances and thus being silly humans and going hard way.

 

 

Smashing things together is like monkey style for making tool use. okay its occassionaly somewhat effective. and highly dangerous.

 

 

no.

 

what you do is start targeting smaller phase and scalar states from the ones you can access already.

 

you use the magnetic field to oscillate at the vibrational frequentia of the strong and weak force- and it all floats apart instead of blowing up.

 

a low energy event is not only safer, lower energy radiation results and can be mor eoh yes zoned to the soft radition spectrum.

 

plus if you looking for something extra small, big bang does not help.

 

like i said earlier.

 

pool.

 

some balls on this table are a million times larger than others.

 

strangely you can still use them to knock each other around;

 

if your aim is right and you know what you are doing.

 

its a holographics problem. not a nano bullet problem.

 

 

 

(see Can Gravitons Be Detected, Rothman & Boughn 2006). So, like photons and other gauge bosons, if gravitons exist, they may be real or virtual, depending on circumstances.

 

they are virtual 99.99 percent of the time or some such and only become real to have their interaction. They are moving in transparent flowpaths through matter, so they don't stop,

they just yank. When they get to the edge of the wyankoop limit, the anti force takes over

and the gravity wave falls back. but this is the yin particle, so it has an even weaker brane interaction by an order of magnitude. It doesn't push or pull anything, it just falls.

in some senses, maybe even, it just stops existing.

 

that part i don;t know. maybe they constantly emanate fresh?

 

but the point is the wave form does drop off. thats also observed.

 

Bringing up branes reveals an important bit of the history of theoretical efforts to fit gravitons into the SM, in that so far the most promising efforts appear to be via string/brane theories. However, none of this theorizing that I’ve read (granted only in popular books like Smolin’s) this doesn’t imply that all gravitons are “outside of our universe” (that is, in another brane), only that gravitons are, according to some string theories, able to mediate interactions (also called “carry force”) between particles in different branes. It’s been suggested that this helps explain why gravity is such a weak force, and why there appears to be an un-accounted for gravitational attraction between nearly empty space and all the visible objects in the universe, a possible solution of the “dark matter/missing mass” problem.

 

I have expert knowledge in 20 subjects but at best a bacheleors in QM. if you think my line of reasoning is flawed, give a better model if you can. otherwise, lets find either a bigger hole or a way to patch the one you think you see up. or soemthing.

:)

At the moment, neither do I, nor as best I can tell be reading a sampling of them, do most of the people with enough math and experience in physics to have a credible first-hand opinion (alas, with my sorry background, I’m just a spectator and speculator to the real theoretical work at hand, though learning little bits day by day, who knows, someday?).

 

Well, heres my magickal thinking proof and confession. they would sure make it easy to

have newer trek tek if they were manipulable.

 

and the only other particle to play with like this is tachyons.

 

can i take tachyons, BTW, for 100?

 

I also don’t not believe in them – again, an agnosticism sadly gained almost completely second hand.

 

exactly my position, i am a graviton agnostic.

 

 

Perhaps “I’ll believe it when I see the experimental evidence” lay-types like me will someday get to see some graviton detections in the planet-sized detector around a dwarf star like Rothman describes in his paper linked above. Even if it didn’t detect gravitons, it would be a pretty cool bit of engineering to see! ;)

 

maybe we should just start working on the holographics system?

 

 

 

PS: Given that this is the strange claims forum, but we’re having (or trying, at least to have) an un-strange physics discussion, if there are no objections, I’ll move these recent old theory and graviton-related posts to a respectable new thread in the math and physics forum.

 

 

hmmm. kewl.

 

got any ideas for a more respectable graviton model?

 

mines hairbrained and I'm just seeing the moderators goggles multiplied by the geeks

interests.

 

the concept of gravitons amuses me and hypothetical contemplation amuses me.

 

i am very good at hypothetical contemplation tho not comparably as good in QM as say

architecture.

:D

 

hmm. still herein this forum not there.. me... i'd be maybe out of my depth to play errr...

devils advocate there.

 

i mean?

 

?

[prometheuspan]

hmm. i think moving it seems to have killed the discussion.

 

the problem is i think most of us know its all speculation. So if you put it in this forum, theres next to nothing to be said.

 

somebody prove me wrong?

[Pyrotex]

Well, that's the way it happens some time. Easy come, easy go.

Not every flag will flutter in the breeze.

Not every duck will float.

Not every sure thing pays off.

But thanks for playing the game.

 

Tracy, what do we have for our guests?

 

Hello, Guests!

For each of our players today, our consolation prize is a twelve-piece set of egg cups,

hand shaped and painted by artisans in Romania!

Each egg cup is dish-washer and microwave oven safe!

 

[APPLAUSE]