On Feb 21, 5:55*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...2008/02/20/sci...
Ken

xxein: It is not final. The bowling ball theory has not been
disproven. Furthermore, the amount of lubrication on the alley has
has not been dismissed as a possible threshold factor.

Is there only one G-relativity? I think not. Under the narrow scope
of this study, it may inadvertently miss that there are wider and
deeper aspects that may change the paradigm. But we should not be
comparing bananas and cucumbers here.

Instead, we should be looking directly at the G-relativity issue
itself. We have tools that we use, but there are many more tools we
haven't even considered using to solve for a solution.

G-relativity probably has many solutions, but we aren't as familiar
with this as we might think we are.

Perhaps we should design more experiments that provide positive
feedback rather than a 'hit or miss' approach that would falsely
identify G-relativity as a certain theory. But remember, this is
going to be brought up time and time again. The results of these
experiments will undoubtedly vary.

But all this depends upon the g(00). It seems certain that a g(00)
must exist in order for the G-relativity to exist at all. This is
probably where the E-relativity got screwed up and reached a dead
end. It didn't have the ability to explore the regions that it
admitted it implied (the dreaded 'nether' region).

The E-relativity didn't reach the bottom of the problem. Nor did it
understand the breadth. It was a shallow investigation that only
sometimes got any result at all. There is simply no 'proof' in this
except for an occasional positive response that might not be directly
related.

Otoh, there seems to be a strong force that arises occasionally
between the experimental probe and the test apparatus. Its likely
that some energy transfer may happen at a sub-level (or else g(00) is
false). The test apparatus may give indication of a contracting space
while the probe shows an expanding space and the dissemination of
material directly within the Schwartzchild radius.

I have done these experiments and found them to be mosty subjectively
oriented. I didn't have the same lab conditions or the same material
setup every time. And sometimes the 'Heisenberg Principle' crops up.
Was there a reason to perform the experiment or not.

Regardless of my experimental results (not designed to prove a G-
relativity), I hope that further investigation will continue and that
positive results will come to those that are willing to carry on this
investigation.