On Wed, 16 Nov 11, eric gisse wrote:
If you are going to make a bunch of ridiculous statements then leave the
discussion, why make the ridiculous statements at all?

You mean you want me to "discuss" things like:

Let me get this straight. You do not understand general relativity ...
False.

Do you think the 'house of cards' comment have anything to do with the
fact that everything you wrote after that was nonsense?
False.

But wait, let's bring out a real topic from a previous post: I wrote:

(1) If "gravity gravitates", that should be translatable into a simple
adjustment on the inverse square law, which hasn't been observed.

Since binding energy will have the same distribution as the matter which
generates it, I am unclear on how you think that'd alter the inverse
square law.

So your response is to dissemble by equating gravity to "binding
energy" presumably not separable from the source matter. But of
course gravity acts at a distance. If "gravity gravitates", then this
extra gravitating would act across the whole gravitational field. So
the inverse square law would be adjusted. If you say gravity
at-a-distance does not gravitate, but gravity does gravitate, then it
is you who are being unclear.

Now I really have no more time to chase my tail (or yours) on this,
but it is not for the reasons that you say.

EF