Peak Expensive Oil

[shiny!]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

Angela and Margaret are not 100% women in the usual sense. As for Hillary, she's definitely not a woman at all. A real woman won't tolerate her husband's public sex scandals.

Anyway, having a woman as a head of state doesn't prove anything. A female head of state can be a puppet controlled by men. Korea is an extremely male dominated society, yet they have a female president. The same with Pakistan where women can be almost legally killed by their husbands and fathers if they misbehave. They had female presidents if I'm not wrong.

The patriarchial Abrahamic religions were fundamental (pardon the pun) to the formation of our patriarchial society. Women can be supporters of patriarchy just as men can work to create a matriarchal society. When it comes to matriarchal and patriarchal thinking, what someone has between their legs matters less than what they have between their ears.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

You entered the thread proposing your own theories of science and specifically asked for recommendations. Astonas provided an amazingly insightful, respectful and sincere reply. He (or she) even indulged the possibility that your theory has merit. Now you respond with this absurd rudeness?

You are an intelligent person. I am sure you have much to offer the world. However, the simple and honest truth is that your theories of physics are delusions of grandeur. I am sure you strongly reject this possibility. If you are convinced I am wrong, I urge you to find a psychiatrist and explain the situation. Show them your book and your Capital Spillway PDF. Ask them if it's possible that you are indeed the greatest physicist in all of human history.

For the record, I was faced with someone referring to my family responsibilities, which I felt then, and still, was totally unacceptable. Now, you claim I am claiming to be the greatest physicist in all human history and need to see a psychiatrist; when all I did was give a fair description of what I have written about and external reactions; without any reference to my personal status. ...... Wow!

[Chris Coles]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

You entered the thread proposing your own theories of science and specifically asked for recommendations. Astonas provided an amazingly insightful, respectful and sincere reply. He (or she) even indulged the possibility that your theory has merit. Now you respond with this absurd rudeness?

You are an intelligent person. I am sure you have much to offer the world. However, the simple and honest truth is that your theories of physics are delusions of grandeur. I am sure you strongly reject this possibility. If you are convinced I am wrong, I urge you to find a psychiatrist and explain the situation. Show them your book and your Capital Spillway PDF. Ask them if it's possible that you are indeed the greatest physicist in all of human history.

My record speaks for itself, over many years here on iTulip, at any point where I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong, I have always set out to set the record straight. Neither have I ever tried to make out that I have any extraordinary attribute above any other. But within this debate, having re-read through my comments, I can see that I did indeed make one error; I refrained from repeating what had made me angry. These two sentences made me very angry indeed.

So here's why this reply saddens me. I think it may be time to ask yourself one question you might owe yourself and your family: "Is chasing this idea really how I want to spend my time?" If I were answering that question for myself, the answer would be no. If I were retired, I don't know that a permanent condition of being dismissed or mocked would enhance my golden years, or if the fire of the fight could compensate for the time spent on it, instead of with family.

I had made it quite clear that "I have no problem with a debate about technicalities". My mistake was not adding the quotation to ensure everyone understood exactly what had made me angry. That I readily agree was a mistake. Yes, I agree that those two sentences may not be seen by any other as unacceptable; but I did, and moreover, that is anyone's perfect right to find something makes them angry as they did to me.

All I had been doing was my best to describe what my own theories entail; even answering questions as best I could. But what seems very prevalent today is for science to descend to such levels of personal abuse in defence of science itself. As any original thinker will happily agree, every new thought is an illusion created by the thinking mind; yes some outside of the thinking process call any such a "delusion of grandeur", but that is as surely abusive as any that seems to reflect upon the stability of the mind that created the new thinking?

You are surely not going to now try and say that your own comments were not intended to be abusive?

I placed a short note at the front of the 1st edition, it says this:

"These words might be seen as just one of those dust swirls of life. A quick wisp of something indeterminate and then it is gone; but without regrets.

What I have set out to achieve here is to get across that id steeped idea of a frontier that is called thinking, thoughts, liking, smiling and having fun. If that is all there is to life, then life is sometimes good to us. In a way, all this shows how an inventive mind thinks. I have cottoned onto something that is indeterminate and hard to define. There is nothing concrete. No bank balance to view or fine house on a hill to offer, simply thoughts and ideas and the like. Most of the human race is far more prescient and takes such hard evidence of success and hangs on tight to reality. There are few of us indeed that trade that for the unreal idea of simply, an idea; a thought to convey via a conversation.

If I am gone and you have found these words, do not disappoint me by settling into a life of regret. Keep seeking whatever it is that sparks the mind. There is more of it there than most people can ever know exists and the effort pays dividends infinitely higher than anything Wall Street deals in."

All I set out to do with this part of the conversation here on this thread was to see if I could find an open mind or two with which to work forward. If my input to the conversation was such that it deserves to be treated with such contempt that a respondent feels they must get right down and deeply personal; then where are we today as a supposedly intelligent species?

[touchring]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

The patriarchial Abrahamic religions were fundamental (pardon the pun) to the formation of our patriarchial society. Women can be supporters of patriarchy just as men can work to create a matriarchal society. When it comes to matriarchal and patriarchal thinking, what someone has between their legs matters less than what they have between their ears.

The Chinese society is matriarchal and most people have difficulty understanding it because they don't know the difference between Chinese and Japanese or Korean, the later being Patriarchal societies where wives have to serve men. There's no such thing in China.

The matriarchal nature Chinese society dates back to the Chinese dynasty eras where the most powerful person in the palace is the empress dowager and not the emperor. The emperor in fact needs to kneel to the empress dowager every morning. You don't find British and European kings kneeling to their queen mothers.

At the extended family level, the grandmother holds great power even in old China. In modern China, this power is transferred to wives. It was Bo Xilai's wife that got Bo into hot soup. Bo is one of the most powerful politician in China, he could even kidnap and make ordinary civilians "disappear", but fears his wife so much that he claimed his wife has gone crazy. Mao's wife was the actual power behind the throne, surfaced after Mao died and created so much trouble that they had to imprison her.

The modern day politburo is comprised of men but decisions are made in the bedroom.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

The Chinese society is matriarchal and most people have difficulty understanding it because they don't know the difference between Chinese and Japanese or Korean, the later being Patriarchal societies where wives have to serve men. There's no such thing in China.

The matriarchal nature Chinese society dates back to the Chinese dynasty eras where the most powerful person in the palace is the empress dowager and not the emperor. The emperor in fact needs to kneel to the empress dowager every morning. You don't find British and European kings kneeling to their queen mothers.

At the extended family level, the grandmother holds great power even in old China. In modern China, this power is transferred to wives. It was Bo Xilai's wife that got Bo into hot soup. Bo is one of the most powerful politician in China, he could even kidnap and make ordinary civilians "disappear", but fears his wife so much that he claimed his wife has gone crazy. Mao's wife was the actual power behind the throne, surfaced after Mao died and created so much trouble that they had to imprison her.

The modern day politburo is comprised of men but decisions are made in the bedroom.

I believe it's the ancient Persian proverb, "the man may be the head of the household but the woman is the neck that turns the head."

[shiny!]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

The Chinese society is matriarchal and most people have difficulty understanding it because they don't know the difference between Chinese and Japanese or Korean, the later being Patriarchal societies where wives have to serve men. There's no such thing in China.

The matriarchal nature Chinese society dates back to the Chinese dynasty eras where the most powerful person in the palace is the empress dowager and not the emperor. The emperor in fact needs to kneel to the empress dowager every morning. You don't find British and European kings kneeling to their queen mothers.

At the extended family level, the grandmother holds great power even in old China. In modern China, this power is transferred to wives. It was Bo Xilai's wife that got Bo into hot soup. Bo is one of the most powerful politician in China, he could even kidnap and make ordinary civilians "disappear", but fears his wife so much that he claimed his wife has gone crazy. Mao's wife was the actual power behind the throne, surfaced after Mao died and created so much trouble that they had to imprison her.

The modern day politburo is comprised of men but decisions are made in the bedroom.

That's really interesting, touchring. Thank you!

[DSpencer]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

For the record, I was faced with someone referring to my family responsibilities, which I felt then, and still, was totally unacceptable. Now, you claim I am claiming to be the greatest physicist in all human history and need to see a psychiatrist; when all I did was give a fair description of what I have written about and external reactions; without any reference to my personal status. ...... Wow!

Chris,

I'm probably a fool for spending my time engaging in this. The only reason to bother is that I enjoy the itulip forums and I want to see reason and honesty prevail over insanity.

You don't have to explicitly claim to be the greatest physicist of all time. It's implied by the fact that you claim to have theories which undermine the work of nearly every great physicist in the last century or two. Theories which you believe "scare the hell out of the scientific community". It's implied that general relativity, cosmology, quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics and god knows what else would have to all be reworked or discarded to make sense with your new revelations. If you don't understand that and don't understand these theories at an extremely high level, why do you believe anyone should take you seriously?

Not all thoughts, ideas and theories are created equal. If you think giving ideas like yours equal attention (and funding) to those of Einstein, Feynman, Hawking, etc. is required for us to be an intelligent species, you are gravely mistaken. I love physics. If I believed I had the mathematical aptitude required to make a good contribution, I would quit my lucrative job and go back to school. I will continue to study it in the same way you claim to: as a hobby. What I won't do is delude myself into thinking that my hobby and associated musings have surpassed the combined work of thousands of scientists who have made it their lives' work to understand these fields. I politely suggest you do the same.

If you think this is offensive or abusive, all I can say is that sometime the truth hurts. I suppose a person adhering more closely to the "if you don't have anything nice to say..." rule would have simply said what your friend's cosmologist friend had to say:

Len took a copy in to an old friend of his, the chief cosmologist in NMSU who answered; "What do you say to someone claiming to have found a cure for cancer? I will not say any more".

Perhaps I should take that advice.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

Not that I completely agree with everything you write above touchring but I will saw that the "Western vision of docile Asian women" does not apply to Chinese women in my experience. I believe that is an ideal out of Japanese or Korean culture and not Chinese.

The women can rule with an iron fist.

[touchring]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

Not that I completely agree with everything you write above touchring but I will saw that the "Western vision of docile Asian women" does not apply to Chinese women in my experience. I believe that is an ideal out of Japanese or Korean culture and not Chinese.

The women can rule with an iron fist.

Of course personalities vary, there are alpha males and females in every society, and there are great variations in the culture, mentality and temperament of women in China depending on which part of the country they come from, and whether they are from urban cities or the countryside.

I'm speaking in general but the current trend is women in Chinese societies are gaining power faster than women in other societies.

I believe that urbanization is one of the reason, followed by capitalization and American media/pop culture influences (All the bad stuff, sans the good - Christianity and civic mindedness for example) and single child policy - creates princesses that later become queens.

This is an important trend to consider because women have generally different goals from men. Men are generally more idealistic - democracy like most philosophies is more of a male concept, as is communism.

Women are more practical and cautious - money and shelter (personal safety) is more important. Of course, in many cases, the hair ranks above all.

The craze and the dominance of real estate in Chinese societies is also driven by the expectation of Chinese women. Women like to own their own homes. Chinese men that wish to marry must be able to afford an apartment. The house is the pre-requisite to marriage.

Since real estate in China is so expensive in relation to income, some men will resort to illegal ways to own one - corruption, cheating, etc.

When the basic need for the immediate shelter is satisfied, the more well off Chinese women will want to spread the eggs - get another home in another country, e.g. Vancouver, Brisbane, London, etc. But contrary to what most of us think, it doesn't mean they want to flee China or that China is collapsing.

Some women are inherently insecure and paranoid, Bo Xilai's wife supposedly killed her British business partner because he used threatening words on her son.

Despite the Internet and availability of information, there a surprising dearth of understanding of what is happening around the world. Is China an autocratic country?

Yes and No. Yes, if you define autocracy as not having elections. No, if you define autocracy as not having to account to the people. The CCP has to account to the Chinese people and in fact declares what it wants to do.

Is the US a democracy? Yes, if you define democracy as having elections. No, if you define democracy as having to account to it's citizens. The US accounts more to oligarchs like Warren Buffett and George Soros than to ordinary citizens. The CIA doesn't need to account to Americans. I'm not even sure if the CIA needs to account to the American President?

The world is changing as we speak. China is changing, the US is also changing, in just another 10-15 years, the world will be completely different from what we know of it today.

[aaron]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

Of course personalities vary, there are alpha males and females in every society, and there are great variations in the culture, mentality and temperament of women in China depending on which part of the country they come from, and whether they are from urban cities or the countryside.

I'm speaking in general but the current trend is women in Chinese societies are gaining power faster than women in other societies.

I believe that urbanization is one of the reason, followed by capitalization and American media/pop culture influences (All the bad stuff, sans the good - Christianity and civic mindedness for example) and single child policy - creates princesses that later become queens.

This is an important trend to consider because women have generally different goals from men. Men are generally more idealistic - democracy like most philosophies is more of a male concept, as is communism.

Women are more practical and cautious - money and shelter (personal safety) is more important. Of course, in many cases, the hair ranks above all.

The craze and the dominance of real estate in Chinese societies is also driven by the expectation of Chinese women. Women like to own their own homes. Chinese men that wish to marry must be able to afford an apartment. The house is the pre-requisite to marriage.

Since real estate in China is so expensive in relation to income, some men will resort to illegal ways to own one - corruption, cheating, etc.

When the basic need for the immediate shelter is satisfied, the more well off Chinese women will want to spread the eggs - get another home in another country, e.g. Vancouver, Brisbane, London, etc. But contrary to what most of us think, it doesn't mean they want to flee China or that China is collapsing.

Some women are inherently insecure and paranoid, Bo Xilai's wife supposedly killed her British business partner because he used threatening words on her son.

Despite the Internet and availability of information, there a surprising dearth of understanding of what is happening around the world. Is China an autocratic country?

Yes and No. Yes, if you define autocracy as not having elections. No, if you define autocracy as not having to account to the people. The CCP has to account to the Chinese people and in fact declares what it wants to do.

Is the US a democracy? Yes, if you define democracy as having elections. No, if you define democracy as having to account to it's citizens. The US accounts more to oligarchs like Warren Buffett and George Soros than to ordinary citizens. The CIA doesn't need to account to Americans. I'm not even sure if the CIA needs to account to the American President?

The world is changing as we speak. China is changing, the US is also changing, in just another 10-15 years, the world will be completely different from what we know of it today.

This was my experience in visiting & living over there. The idea that women need more rights and more power there is laughable. Women control things, either directly or indirectly. It is quite amazing.

The difference between there and the U.S. is that women in China are far more competent, on average, compared to their American counterparts. I am sure we can come up with a lot of reasons for this, but let's just say it is cultural and be done with it. They work harder.

The Chinese are used to revolutions and do not trust the government, at all. The government knows this and fears the population. It keeps things honest.

In some ways, China is way more diverse than you would think. Germans and English and French are historically white, yet they have vast differences in history, language, and culture. They all are educated in English, and that facilitates communication. - That is what it is like in China. There are many different cultures and they speak very different languages. Everybody must learn Mandarin in schools, and the written language has been standardized so the entire country learns it. However, most people keep their own languages and culture. In some ways, China is a federation of different peoples, who frankly just want the government to leave them alone (except for the free stuff).

In contrast, the United States is quite homogenized, at least until the recent migrations from the Southern hemisphere. Usually, second generation citizens are already "American" by the time they finish high school. Yes, we all look different in comparison, but cultural differences are minimum. I can go almost anywhere in the United States and be able to communicate with the locals. That is not true in China. The expression goes something like: ducks talking to geese.

Finally, the Chinese are far more capitalistic than Americans in their thinking and actions. We are trained to be good workers for corporations. They want to make money. The governor on our behavior, religious traditions for example, is not there. Money is the Chinese god. Without it, you are assured of being wifeless, childless, and worse. There are no Chinese charities (that is what family is for) and no government support. The savings rate is so high because that is the only "insurance" they have for the future, especially because they were not allowed to have kids to help with family finances.

A billion people with a singular focus is quite an unstoppable force. We focus on magic and t.v. The government supports this. They focus on working, studying, and making money. And, the government supports this.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

Is the US a democracy? Yes, if you define democracy as having elections. No, if you define democracy as having to account to it's citizens. The US accounts more to oligarchs like Warren Buffett and George Soros than to ordinary citizens. The CIA doesn't need to account to Americans. I'm not even sure if the CIA needs to account to the American President?

The world is changing as we speak. China is changing, the US is also changing, in just another 10-15 years, the world will be completely different from what we know of it today.

Very interesting viewpoint; parallels my own belief on both fronts. That the CIA answer to no one, (I must add, to the detriment of everyone), and that in just another 10-15 years, the world will be unlike anything we see today.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

A billion people with a singular focus is quite an unstoppable force. We focus on magic and t.v. The government supports this. They focus on working, studying, and making money. And, the government supports this.

Encapsulates the entire debate into four sentences; brilliant!

[Chris Coles]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

Chris,

I'm probably a fool for spending my time engaging in this. The only reason to bother is that I enjoy the itulip forums and I want to see reason and honesty prevail over insanity.

You don't have to explicitly claim to be the greatest physicist of all time. It's implied by the fact that you claim to have theories which undermine the work of nearly every great physicist in the last century or two. Theories which you believe "scare the hell out of the scientific community". It's implied that general relativity, cosmology, quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics and god knows what else would have to all be reworked or discarded to make sense with your new revelations. If you don't understand that and don't understand these theories at an extremely high level, why do you believe anyone should take you seriously?

Not all thoughts, ideas and theories are created equal. If you think giving ideas like yours equal attention (and funding) to those of Einstein, Feynman, Hawking, etc. is required for us to be an intelligent species, you are gravely mistaken. I love physics. If I believed I had the mathematical aptitude required to make a good contribution, I would quit my lucrative job and go back to school. I will continue to study it in the same way you claim to: as a hobby. What I won't do is delude myself into thinking that my hobby and associated musings have surpassed the combined work of thousands of scientists who have made it their lives' work to understand these fields. I politely suggest you do the same.

If you think this is offensive or abusive, all I can say is that sometime the truth hurts. I suppose a person adhering more closely to the "if you don't have anything nice to say..." rule would have simply said what your friend's cosmologist friend had to say:

Len took a copy in to an old friend of his, the chief cosmologist in NMSU who answered; "What do you say to someone claiming to have found a cure for cancer? I will not say any more".

Perhaps I should take that advice.

D,

I am sure that you are an honest individual and that your own opinions are based upon a lifetime of hard study and subsequent work. All that I have done is open the door to an alternative view of what is the reality and I am equally sure that I have never implied any special place in that debate; the implication is yours alone.

But let me give you a very simple challenge, both intellectual and physical.

Why are planets round? http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...planets-round/

The answer given:

Derek Sears, professor of cosmochemistry at the University of Arkansas, explains. Planets are round because their gravitational field acts as though it originates from the center of the body and pulls everything toward it.

All I ask you to do is to go out into your garden and take a shovel and dig into a pile of sand or soil; and turn the shovel over. If gravity is a mono directional force, in the one direction only, towards the centre of the planet; then there will be an observable difference in the physical attributes of that shovel full of sand, when you turn the shovel over. (Or you would observe every particle rotating to re-establish that "towards the centre" field).

Except that we all know that there is no difference.

Please, think about that.

What I had the temerity to do is place into the debate that every particle of a mass has a gravitational force towards the particle from every direction. But that once we accept that possibility, then when we observe gravity within any body of mass, our observation is entirely dependent upon the location of the point of observation and the direction we face at that moment of such observation.

In which case, at the centre of the mass, gravity must be towards the mass, and thus towards the surface of the mass in every direction and in which case, at the centre of the mass, all those, towards the surface, negative, forces must meet at a point of balanced equilibrium. That once you step forward, towards the surface in any direction, away from that point of balanced equilibrium, gravity will be towards the surface, relative to that proportion of the mass in front of the observer. If that is correct, then as we move away from the centre of the mass and move towards the surface, we will experience a further point of balance of the forces, between the centre and the surface; where there is at least one point between the centre and the surface, where there is an equal distribution of the mass both behind, and in front, of that point of equilibrium.

In which case, gravity is towards the centre at the surface of any mass object, yes; but towards the surface at the centre and that between the surface and the centre there must a point where the forces again balance. I use that explanation to describe why this planet has a very distinct density change between the inner and outer core. I believe that is caused by balanced gravity effects. That such balanced forces create a shell of very low gravity right at the interface between the inner and outer core.

The problem arises because if I am correct, then it is quite impossible to create a singularity, where gravity is presently believed to compresses a substantial body of mass down to a minute dimension. For if my explanation is correct, what we get is a body of mass with gravity towards the surface at the center, towards the centre at the outer surface; with balanced gravity effects between the surface and the centre.

I am quite certain that I have given very detailed explanations of the evolution of the structure of M51 the Whirlpool and perhaps of even greater importance SN1987A which has a central body that has been observed to supernova, surrounded by a ring of objects that took some 20 years to "light up". Under my theories, the inner object is the central core object, the distance between the inner object and the outer ring of mass is the result of a very slow expansion of the outer ring of mass and that the outer ring of mass is a balanced mass equal to the mass of the inner core that has, as it expanded, broken up into pieces. That the two are locked together by the gravity of the entire mass of the object.

The two smoke rings surrounding the object are, under my theory, caused by the collapse of the inner object when the supernova occurred causing an very short term emission of mass from an annular ring orifice caused by the same balanced gravity effects within the inner mass; and why those smoke rings are out of line with the rest of the structure of SN1987A.

http://heritage.stsci.edu/1999/04/sn1987anino.html

If gravity is towards the centre at the surface and towards the surface at the centre with an area of balanced forces between the surface and the centre; then it is impossible for any object to form a compressed mass such as to underpin the theory of big bang.

That was the central core of the debate I started in the first edition; there are other aspects not covered herein, particularly with regard to another simple mistake about the event horizon. All I have done since is create an explanation of why particles of mass exhibit a force we describe as gravity, towards each particle, from every direction. More recently discovering what I believe, that the mistake goes right back to three words written by Isaac Newton in his Principia.

If making simple debate, using plain language, without any "flourishes" is always to be treated as though the rantings of a mad man; then how are we ever going to move forward?

Go on, go get your spade out and think about that.

[LazyBoy]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

The Chinese are used to revolutions and do not trust the government, at all. The government knows this and fears the population. It keeps things honest.

I believe you, but this is hard for me to reconcile with my impression (from too much TV, no doubt) that it's still quite possible to be disappeared, imprisoned, or executed for opposing the government/Party. Perhaps I have trouble seeing a balance, when the balance point is not where I expected.

A billion people with a singular focus is quite an unstoppable force. We focus on magic and t.v. The government supports this. They focus on working, studying, and making money. And, the government supports this.

I agree with the general point, but what do you mean by "magic"?

[Jam]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

D,

I am sure that you are an honest individual and that your own opinions are based upon a lifetime of hard study and subsequent work. All that I have done is open the door to an alternative view of what is the reality and I am equally sure that I have never implied any special place in that debate; the implication is yours alone.

But let me give you a very simple challenge, both intellectual and physical.

Why are planets round? http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...planets-round/

The answer given:

Derek Sears, professor of cosmochemistry at the University of Arkansas, explains. Planets are round because their gravitational field acts as though it originates from the center of the body and pulls everything toward it.

All I ask you to do is to go out into your garden and take a shovel and dig into a pile of sand or soil; and turn the shovel over. If gravity is a mono directional force, in the one direction only, towards the centre of the planet; then there will be an observable difference in the physical attributes of that shovel full of sand, when you turn the shovel over. (Or you would observe every particle rotating to re-establish that "towards the centre" field).

Except that we all know that there is no difference.

Please, think about that.

What I had the temerity to do is place into the debate that every particle of a mass has a gravitational force towards the particle from every direction. But that once we accept that possibility, then when we observe gravity within any body of mass, our observation is entirely dependent upon the location of the point of observation and the direction we face at that moment of such observation.

In which case, at the centre of the mass, gravity must be towards the mass, and thus towards the surface of the mass in every direction and in which case, at the centre of the mass, all those, towards the surface, negative, forces must meet at a point of balanced equilibrium. That once you step forward, towards the surface in any direction, away from that point of balanced equilibrium, gravity will be towards the surface, relative to that proportion of the mass in front of the observer. If that is correct, then as we move away from the centre of the mass and move towards the surface, we will experience a further point of balance of the forces, between the centre and the surface; where there is at least one point between the centre and the surface, where there is an equal distribution of the mass both behind, and in front, of that point of equilibrium.

In which case, gravity is towards the centre at the surface of any mass object, yes; but towards the surface at the centre and that between the surface and the centre there must a point where the forces again balance. I use that explanation to describe why this planet has a very distinct density change between the inner and outer core. I believe that is caused by balanced gravity effects. That such balanced forces create a shell of very low gravity right at the interface between the inner and outer core.

The problem arises because if I am correct, then it is quite impossible to create a singularity, where gravity is presently believed to compresses a substantial body of mass down to a minute dimension. For if my explanation is correct, what we get is a body of mass with gravity towards the surface at the center, towards the centre at the outer surface; with balanced gravity effects between the surface and the centre.

I am quite certain that I have given very detailed explanations of the evolution of the structure of M51 the Whirlpool and perhaps of even greater importance SN1987A which has a central body that has been observed to supernova, surrounded by a ring of objects that took some 20 years to "light up". Under my theories, the inner object is the central core object, the distance between the inner object and the outer ring of mass is the result of a very slow expansion of the outer ring of mass and that the outer ring of mass is a balanced mass equal to the mass of the inner core that has, as it expanded, broken up into pieces. That the two are locked together by the gravity of the entire mass of the object.

The two smoke rings surrounding the object are, under my theory, caused by the collapse of the inner object when the supernova occurred causing an very short term emission of mass from an annular ring orifice caused by the same balanced gravity effects within the inner mass; and why those smoke rings are out of line with the rest of the structure of SN1987A.

http://heritage.stsci.edu/1999/04/sn1987anino.html

If gravity is towards the centre at the surface and towards the surface at the centre with an area of balanced forces between the surface and the centre; then it is impossible for any object to form a compressed mass such as to underpin the theory of big bang.

That was the central core of the debate I started in the first edition; there are other aspects not covered herein, particularly with regard to another simple mistake about the event horizon. All I have done since is create an explanation of why particles of mass exhibit a force we describe as gravity, towards each particle, from every direction. More recently discovering what I believe, that the mistake goes right back to three words written by Isaac Newton in his Principia.

If making simple debate, using plain language, without any "flourishes" is always to be treated as though the rantings of a mad man; then how are we ever going to move forward?

Go on, go get your spade out and think about that.

Care to produce some equations to back up your prose Chris?