
Originally Posted by
Le Repteux

Originally Posted by
Flick Montana
I don't have an argument. You propose something which is not in keeping with accepted science and you have thus far failed to support it adequately. Instead you are painting yourself under attack. This is just normal scrutiny any scientist should expect (demand, even).
No, repeating "you are a crank" endlessly is not normal argumentation, and it does not lead to normal argumentation either.
I'm sorry, but I also agree with Flick and Howard. Instead of arguing with people who don't believe you, get some evidence and then they will pay attention. Then, try as hard as you can to disprove your theory. If it stands up, as others have stated, you might have a winner.
If you tested every idea anyone has ever had by trying to disprove it, then we might possibly understand more about the world and its mechanics than we do now. Trying to disprove things makes us come up with things that can make them true. Eventually, as we repeat this process, we will come up with a more complete theory than before.
Also, if you could provide evidence (mathematics, images (other than a short .swf file of two balls moving), etc.)
If you want to improve your ideas, instead of coming up with "witty" replies, try to use mathematics and evidence to attempt to prove yourself to people who disagree. Arguing will get you nowhere.
EDIT: And I would believe you if you had any evidence. However, now that I read the rest of your thread, you seem to be very reluctant to provide any evidence besides copying definitions. At least come up with a potential experiment to test your theory?