<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> (quoting Patrick's link to the Alan Boyle [MSNBC] gravitational wave article):
msnbc.com/news/856046.asp?0cv=CB10
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Kudos to MSNBC's Alan Boyle for getting it at least partially right, in the last paragraph. Unfortunately, the uninitiate is left confounded, because Boyle started out by infering that we (the gravitational round-Earthers) were still 'out there,' thereby leaving the casual reader thinking we were wrong, and casting some shadow of doubt on our FTL postulate. Maybe we *can* educate the public in the nuances and (not so nuanced, large) differences between gravitational wave and gravitational force. Perhaps we can construct computer simulations or, barring this if it proves too expensive, simple slide shows, which demonstrate what the solar system, binary pulsars, galaxy, and universe would look like if the speed of gravitational force were factored in as c. I mean, how ugly would these pictures have to be before the naysayers would start getting the point? My guess is that such images would be completely unrecognizable, for, as opposed to our stubborn mainstream friends' model, ours would give no quarter for the sake of elegance (if your ugly shoe fits, wear it). What say you, gentlemen? Am I missing the point somehow, as well? Is it that we are not necessarily wrong in the flat-Earthers' view, but just have no parlor tricks to show them, such as manipulating a rover on Mars, for instance, instantaneously as a boy with his RC toy? Yes, I know I have a habit of wishful thinking where marrying EM and gravitational force-Morse are concerned, but hey, a guy can dream, right? Larry, are you listening? In the din of battle above, my query to you concerning your ideas for attenuation, was lost.
