The first question to ask is: what is "Idiotic"? If you mean something you do not at first sight understand; in what way does that make the thoughts presented “Idiotic”? No, I am not trying to say you are any sort of an idiot for making the statement, simply just trying to open the debate into a new plane of thought. May I pose you a complex challenge; take into your hands the July 2004 edition of Scientific American and turn to pages 26 to 35, a ten page article titled: The Extraordinary Deaths of Ordinary Stars. Now, read the final two paragraphs. What you will discover is an open admission that the authors do not have all the answers and instead point towards the possible existence of new disruptive theories. One of the authors is Prof. Bruce Balick. Talk to him and ask him why they made that statement; by all means tell him who asked you to open the discussion. However, I suspect, with the greatest of respects, you will find him reluctant to.

Some of us, “on the outside” are recognised in our particular field, but not recognised in “science”. That of itself is not a problem, but what is a problem, not for us on the outside, but for those with enquiring minds on the inside; is that it has become all too easy to call any new disruptive theory “Idiotic” and to thus dismiss it with a wave of the closed off mandarin mind.

There is a very detailed new disruptive theory about the underlying gravitational structure of all mass objects in the universe; from the smallest dust grain to the largest objects at the core of the galaxies. But no one will discuss it nor review the book. I must add, not even Slashdot.

Now you might be forgiven for thinking, so what? But now turn to the Hubble Space Telescope and look for the 15th Anniversary images of M51 and The Eagle Nebula. Yes, there is a connection between the Balick description of a disruptive theory on the one hand and the image of a dust nebula on the other. You see, again, the disruptive theory describes why there are dust clouds, when all mass has gravity that attracts all surrounding mass to form a solid mass object and there is no existing theory for why that solid mass object can gently, without dispersing the mass explosively, evolve into clouds of dust.

Now I am certain that the Zealots will find many reasons to trash this post. But I am assuming you and many like you will have an enquiring mind that actually wants to know why no one, from Scientific American to Slashdot, will review or otherwise publicise the book wherein the disruptive theory resides.

When you do, eventually, get to buy and download the latest e-book edition, you will also discover that it also opens the debate to a completely new internal structure for the Sun and Earth and will point towards why it might be possible for the inner core to be able to easily change its positional relationship with the outer core. And, thus to why the pole is moving and to completely new areas of long term research with millions of clean, blank pages, for all of you who enjoy the challenge, to write upon.

Not even Slashdot is immune from the disastrous effects of the closed mandarin mind desperately afraid to open a discussion about a new disruptive “Idiotic” theory.

Slashdot is being disingenuous; it has already received a detailed explanation of what causes Barred Galaxies; but they, like the entire scientific community, refuse to give such explanation any publicity. May I suggest everyone turn to a past issue, (July 2004), of Scientific American; The Extraordinary Deaths of Ordinary Stars by Bruce Balick and Adam Frank, Ten page article ending with the remark: "this opens the door to a new disruptive theory" but does not mention whose.... disruptive theory. If I sound angry, I am. Slashdot have had the e-book edition for some time, have corresponded, but only to the effect of off handedly and childishly smirking at it. I challenge Slashdot to publish a review. I will not name it as that would be self publicity. But I do call them disingenuous in not accepting they have received a very detailed explanation of what causes Barred Galaxies.

So Slashdot remains silent. Perhaps a little further information might help. Try this: Let me relate a conversation with a prof. of Astronomy at the 2003 AAAS meeting in Memphis TN. I related that it is impossible to create a singularity and that big bang theory was thus moot. I asked him to imagine we stand in a small room at the centre of the planet. Where is all the mass? Answer; it surrounds us in every direction. So gravity is relative to mass, wherever the mass is located. So, OK, we can stand anywhere, walls, ceiling, anywhere in that room at the centre of the planet, with our feet towards the mass, towards the surface of the planet, with a zero gravity balance point right in the centre of the room where all the forces will balance out. So gravity is towards the mass and is towards the surface at the centre of the planet. OK, now change the room for a lift and press the “Up” button and set off for the surface. (Imagine we simply move through the mass of the planet). OK, now we have risen 1,000 miles and we must be able to feel some gravity below us from the mass we have passed through. OK, so what about the mass above us? Surely we must be able to feel gravity from both above and below us? That as we rise through the mass of the planet, (indeed any solid mass object), we will experience a point where gravity is pulling in both directions; towards the surface and towards the centre in equal measure. I believe that balance point is a shell of zero balanced gravity creating the interface between the inner and outer core. But then surely, this debate renders the idea of a singularity, (mass collapsed to infinite density), impossible; if gravity is towards the surface at the centre, with balanced gravity within the mass, as it becomes impossible for the mass to collapse to create the singularity. In turn, big bang relies upon the idea of all the mass of the universe to have “exploded” from an infinite mass At that exact moment, the professor rapidly stepped back three paces from me as though I had swung a punch at him. I offered him a copy of my book but he said, while vigorously waving his hands - No! No! He declined to even touch it and red faced, he walked away. To this day, no one will publicise my book. I wonder why? Oh! Yes, and just for fun, think about the implications for every other large mass object in the universe? Our star, the Sun, or a Planetary Nebula, or the average black hole, , or again, the structure of a galaxy. Did Slashdot know I have created a very detailed debate about the structure and sequence of events that I believe has occurred to give us what we see today with the M51 Whirlpool Galaxy, or again, Supernova 1987A - Again, why do we have dust clouds in space when all mass attracts to form ever larger objects It is surely appropriate to once again ask Slashdot – why not publicise such a book????

May I also start with a :) Starting with the Proton. (And I must make it clear, this part of my overall understanding did not appear to me for some years). Let us take the Moon orbiting Earth as an example. Gravity from the mass of the Earth does not stop at the orbit of the moon, it extends beyond the moon's orbit where the moon is not directly above the location of observation. (Indeed it also extends beyond the orbit of the moon even then, but that is not pertinent to this debate as I want to keep it simple). In the same way, the electromagnetic force field of the proton does not stop at the orbiting distance of the electron. In which case, (as it turns out), and particularly where the electron is not directly above the point of observation in relationship to the protons electron; the conventional description of the external electromagnetic force field of the proton does not conform to the rules of electromagnetism as set down by James Clerk Maxwell. Quote from (my), chapter 31 Unity? 31.2 Maxwell States: (A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism by James Clerk Maxwell, 1873). "Force between two electrified bodies has no boundary" Vol. 1, page 44 Also, "The potential at the particle will continuously diminish till the particle reaches either a negatively charged surface at a potential less than that of the first conductor, or moves off at an infinite distance" Vol. 1 page 50. Turning to your excellent example where you envisage the balloon floating off into outer space. Where you have gone wrong in your thought experiment is you have been led to believe that the proton is entirely repulsive. On my part, I have set out a very detailed debate about the actual structure of the proton in which I propose that it is composed of an electromagnetic force field that is an attached field, positive to negative, attached to a dipole right at its centre. That the attached force field is large enough in diameter to prevent the attachment between the two poles from being either visible or violated. That the structure of the proton is an inviolable attached force field. In which case, if it is indeed electromagnetic, then, again, to conform to Maxwell, it is entirely a positive field attached between the negative and positive poles and as such, will be entirely a positive field of electromagnetism for the entire distance between the two poles. In which case, as positive electromagnetic force fields repulse; that will explain the repulsion of the proton. BUT, in which case also; that positive force field will have a remnant that will always abide with the Maxwell rules and where there is no electron to mask the effect, the field will extend beyond the orbit of the particular proton's electron, (A part of the structure of the proton itself), to attach to the negative pole of the new "other" Proton's electron. And under Maxwell, if necessary, to infinity. You have to understand that this is a very small part of the overall debate. I took on board the graffiti someone placed at Stanford many years ago saying; "Einstein, e=mc2 yes, but where is your working?" So in my case the full working extends to 484 pages. Gravity is caused by the very simple mechanism of the (energy of the) positive electromagnetic force field of the proton extending beyond the orbit of the proton's electron to attach with another proton's electron, negative field. Where everyone got it wrong was to entirely rely on a mathematical explanation without first of all questioning the logical nature of the debate. I have come at this from an entirely non mathematical direction and used logic to debate with myself as a way of understanding what caused big bang and ended up with a completely new debate about the nature of what we all know as gravity. Now, please, a quick question to Slashdot: Have you received a copy of the full e-Book? Do you need a new set of download keys?

It would be quite irresponsible of me to damage Birx's reputation by making any claim that he will not publicly support. To that end, it is important that I add that Prof. Birx does not agree that my theories are correct, while at the same time, he has also pointed out, in writing, that the book "Is quite a Masterpiece now". As for me, my entire working history is laid out in some detail in the free PDF book The Road Ahead from a Grass Roots Perspective which you may download from http://www.chriscoles.com/page3.html You will discover that I am already internationally recognised as an inventor and more recently, that I am working hard to create a better investment environment for the individual inventor, both by addressing that debate in the comments section of The Times, London and also in the economic debates on www.itulip.com

In one respect, your answer makes a lot of sense; when one considers that you have not read the book. The answer to your immediate question about the rock dropped inside an evacuated container depends upon the expected solution of the chamber being empty. But you yourself talked about covalent bonding while being unable to consider that, if there is such bonding, then when does it stop? What I am debating is that it does not; that the electromagnetic force field of the proton, under the rules set out by James Clerk Maxwell, may extend to infinity. As the chamber is not being proposed as infinite in volume, then the attachments between individual protons extend to the other surface. In which case the chamber is not empty. That those attachments are what we describe as gravity. As for the event horizon. All I have done is create a debate. You will have to read it to be able to understand the points I raise. There are six separate parts to the book. Part 6 Questions needing answers starts at page 325 and runs for 94 pages full of possible experiments for anyone to try out for themselves. It includes reference to what is believed to be the sixth largest mass object in gravity research, a 894.266Kg Steel bar donated by Electralloy Inc. The story of the bar revolves around the simple fact that I am not funded. It is currently in the basement of the Mechanical Engineering Department of the University of Houston. The initial experiment I have so far carried out was interrupted by the simple fact that I had to return to the UK before we could produce presentable data, (my decision, not anyone else), because I had run out of money. You may ask Prof Birx if we realised any data that "suggested" my predictions, set out in great detail in Part 6; "might" be demonstrated by the initial results. My supervisor, Professor Donald L. Birx is currently finishing as Vice Chancellor of Research for the University of Houston System http://www.uh.edu/news-events/archive/nr/2006/08aug/081706donald_birx.html and has just been appointed Chancellor of Penn State Erie, the Bethrend College. http://psbehrend.psu.edu/news-events/news/birx-named-next-penn-state-behrend-chancellor Without an email address I cannot send you download keys for the book. My reason for making the charge of $10 is simply that I am not funded in any way and have to support myself. Something quite normal in the human condition I am led to believe. Oh! in passing, Leonard R. Sugerman was for some 33 years after retiring from the USAF; Assistant to the Director of PSL NMSU, or to put it another way, was one of the two individuals running White Sands. He read the first edition and agreed to put his name to the founding of my tiny one man publishing company so that I could publish the initial theories back in 2003. You need to read a book before dismissing it out of hand. But perhaps you knew that all along.