*Gravity**What hard evidence do you have*Sure.

Can you explain to your readers the attractive mechanism? The hard evidence you have for your hypothesis that any satellite orbits above the earth using an attractive gravitational force?

Let me explain to you the enormity of your claim.

Can you explain to your readers how two gravitons attract each other? What is the mechanism of attraction?

You cannot, therefore those trillions of billions of liters of water are glued to an outer surface by pure magic.

Even pure magic cannot explain this horrendous hypothesis.

You cannot resort to general relativity: I can immediately point out how Einstein faked the 1919/1922 crucial solar eclipses data, show you the original Maxwell equations which are superluminal.

You claim that terrestrial gravity is attractive, yet you cannot explain the mechanism.

It is even worse than pure magic.

Please explain the physics to your readers.

What you are telling your readers is even worse than Aristotle's Credo Quia Absurdum Est (I believe because it is absurd).

The attractive gravity hypothesis is not even a credible fairy tale, it is even beyond the powers of pure magic to explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

It is though the exemplification of a fanatical and dogmatic agenda which goes even beyond what organized religion has to offer.

Do you want to use gravitons?

So, how do four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?

Let us examine the graviton problem. There are only two possible choices: either these gravitons were a one-time emission five billion years ago, or they are being emitted continuously by the iron/nickel core. In both cases the graviton must either consist of two kinds of particles, one which has an emissive vortex, the other one which has a receptive vortex, or a single particle with two ends consisting of an emissive vortex, while the other end has a receptive vortex.

In both cases we are dealing immediately with the defiance of the law of conservation of energy: how in the world can these vortices function after five billion years with no loss of energy?

Moreover, you have another huge problem: each object on the surface of the earth must connect to the gravitons emitted by the iron/nickel core through strings of gravitons which fit neatly and totally to each and every graviton released by the object itself. How then can that object move freely on the surface of the sphere? Obviously the strings of gravitons emitted by the iron/nickel core are not intelligent enough to know the random direction of movement of the object. Are you telling your readers that the strings of the object can slide freely from a static string of gravitons emitted by the iron/nickel core, to another with no loss of energy, not to mention the very mechanism itself?

The gases in the atmosphere do not obey any kind of an attractive law of gravity.

The gravitons cannot be used to explain attractive gravity.

There is no such thing as general relativity, or spacetime continuum.

Please explain to your readers how attractive gravitation functions. If you cannot, then what you are telling yourself and to your readers is that gravity on a spherical earth is governed by pure magic.

Take a look at how Einstein faked the 1919/1922 data for general relativity:

The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.htmlhttp://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)

http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.htmlHOW EINSTEIN MODIFIED HIS FORMULA RELATING TO MERCURY'S ORBIT IN ORDER TO FIT THE RESULTS:

http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm (scroll down to The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look...)

Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.

Moreover, Einstein made a terrible blunder.

Einstein, 1905:

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”

We can infer immediately that Einstein had no knowledge whatsoever of the original ether equations derived by Maxwell, and based his false/erroneous conclusions on the MODIFIED/CENSORED Heaviside-Lorentz equations.

"Einstein claims that “The principle of the constancy of the velocityof light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”.

If the Lorentz force had still been included as one of Maxwell’s equations, they could

have been written in total time derivative format (see Appendix A in ‘The Double

Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field’) and Einstein would not have been able to make

this claim. A total time derivative electromagnetic wave equation would allow the

electromagnetic wave speed to alter from the perspective of a moving observer."

Here are the censored Heaviside-Lorentz equations, USED BY EINSTEIN to justify his erroneous claim regarding the speed of light:

Here is the original set of J.C. Maxwell's equations, which prove that the speed of light is variable and not constant:

There is no such thing as general relativity.