An Attractive Proposition (was - Space Elevator is itpossible?)

Painius wrote,

If it's all not philosophy, if it's such a
good and close "approximation of
physical reality", then why won't more
scientists take the initiative to translate
those great works of science without
making laypeople feel like their too
unworthy to acquire the knowledge?

We are the "great unwashed", the teeming ignoramii unworthy of their
deigning to "talk down to". The pearls-swine thang, dontcha know.
Among those VS'ers you're currenty conflabbing with
here about FS gravity, IF any of them are genuinely interested in
*objectively* learning about FS gravity and how it IS NOT as "La Sage"
theory, IF they're not just in it to nitpick and debunk, there is an
excellent 'layman-friendly' tutorial on it by Jerry Shifman. He's one of
those frequently mentioned who deduced *on their own* the FS model. His
thesis is the most concise and to-the-point of all of them.
Shifman 'got' at the very outset the mechanism of
gravity-acceleration equivalence. In his tutorial he also explains DMP
of the mechanism of inertia and conservation of momentum. Be forewarned
however, that he, like some of the others, persists in using the archaic
and pernicious 'E' word (ether) for the spatial medium.
Shifman likewise has no concept of the larger CBB
process (nor do the others), so he sees the pressurization of space as
gradually "running down" with no process of replenishment. He associates
this with redshift. These peripheral issues aside, his thesis gives a
surperb rendition of the core mechanism of Flowing-Space Gravity.

If anybody is *objectively* interested in it, Google
'Jerry Shifman, gravity'.