Billzilla

From the diagrams I've seen of the spaced behind the multiple doors, I reckon it'd be easier & quicker to pop a few stones out of the outside of the pyramid. Looks a heck of a lot easier to do to me ...

Define 'reality'.

Cattle mutilations are up this year.

Is this it? Spin gravity = K dI sine 0 / r^ 2 K = constant dI = induced electric vector created by magnetism and spin acceleration sine 0 = spin vector r = distance from centre of spin .. to which the first reponse was - http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/posts/post133858.shtm ... then http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/posts/post133883.shtm The professional opinion was totally unsurprising.

It's been proven about fifty different ways that 'spin gravity' can't explain anything, because it doesn't follow the observed universe in any way whatsoever at any point.

I agree. It's mainly to do with improved reporting rather than actual deterioration of the general weather systems. But I do also agree there is a certain amount of deterioration of the general weather systems, though I could not speculate how much of that is due to human factors and how much is some chaotic variation. I suspect that the true lies somewhere between the tree-huggers shouts of doom, and the fat bloke who doesn't care.

But none of them match any observation by anyone at any point ever.

Amusing as this is .... I don't think that elementary particles can seriously be counted as complete planets. Particles = small Planet = big The only thing that gives birth to a planet is a large accretion disk.

The battery in my clock doesn't move, and it makes electricity.

That's 285mpg!!! Not too bad at all.

I post under my real name, Bill Sherwood, most times.

37 tomorrow, and I am a 747 pilot & racing driver.

He's been 'published' a few times - http://www.theage.com.au/breaking/2001/11/02/FFXHPZPTITC.html http://old.smh.com.au/ballot01/0111/03/ballot5.html http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn-old/archive2002/posts/March/topic669100.shtm I haven't found anything he's actually published though ...

More on the alternate (ah-hem!) theories of Mr Zarkov. http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/posts/topic102992.shtm

He's a nice guy. He's a free thinker. He's a non-conformist, in a nice way. But ... ... his theories don't remotely agree with the ones that have been proven to work extremely well for the last decade to centuries past. He won't provide any hard forlumae to back them up, so it's difficult to agrue with a moving target. If you can get some formula's out of him, great, please work on them fair & square to see if they have merit. But please remember, he's a nice guy, just a little ..... odd.