Thread: About weak gravity and time

1. Member
Join Date
Oct 2018
Posts
10

About weak gravity and time

Abstract : a very simple explanation for the flat rotation curve of the galaxies, and maybe a great change in our science and perception of the universe.

I propose below an explanation for the flat rotation curve of the galaxies. It sheds a new light on the very nature of time, and implies that our conventional cosmology and vision of the universe are quite flawed and need rebuilding.

The galaxies rotation curve problem has always puzzled me. I never felt satisfied with CDM or other exotic models. For me the explanation was certainly not in dark matter : it had to be simpler, more fundamental, and in simple accordance with what we see.

MOND does not propose a true explanation but it is indeed simple and efficient to describe reality. My personal Ockham razor kept telling me that the truth was more likely to be hidden behind MOND, than behind CDM.

I recently had a surprising idea and began writing down a little maths (first time since university, I am 53), computing big figures and thinking. The conclusion was so simple and so evident that it has to be true.

So we have a long-standing problem with galactic rotation speeds, which are too fast for our classical science.

So we created CDM and other more or less exotic models, to complete or amend the existing ones. And MOND, which works quite well but does not give the reason behind.

These orbital speeds, says classical science, should decrease outwards following rcn(GM/r). But observed speeds do not conform : they are more or less constant (out of center region), or very slowly decreasing, but nowhere near the expected rate, given visible matter.

Speed is distance divided by time. Sometimes truth is hidden behind the more simple things.

Current science says the galactic orbital conditions are non-relativistic. Hence fixed time, our time, everywhere, less some places with very strong gravity. But I believe that thse conditions are relativistic : on the other side of gravity, the weak one.

Let's suppose that the apparent speed difference is due to the fact that the second is shorter there, than ours very own.

After all, very strong gravities stretch time ; maybe that very weak ones compress time ?...

Almost all is said. Yes it is that simple. So astonishingly simple. So beautifully simple. And the implications are immense for our perception of the world.

Suppose a star at 16 kpc from a galaxy center : it's orbiting at 240 km/s, but our visible mass estimates tells us it should rather orbit at 80 km/s.

If the 16kpc-second equals 1/3 of our own second, in one 16kpc-second the star effectively goes 80km. Simple classical gravity, in its own time scale.

Since MOND describes quite well what we see, let's see if we can have precisions about a supposed time variability in weak gravities.

(Vl)exp4 = GMa° Vl = local speed m/s meters by earth second, MOND

Vg = rcn(GM/r) Vg = galactic speed m/sg meters by galactic second, NEWT

So the MOND speed should equate true galactic speed in galactic local seconds sg :

GMa° / s.exp4 = (GM).exp2 / (r.exp2 . sg.exp4)

Hence :

r.exp2 . sg.exp4 = ((GM).exp2 / GMa°) . s.exp4

And :

r.exp2 . sg.exp4 = (GM / a°) . s.exp4

Finally :

sg.exp4 = (GM / r.exp2) . (1 / a°) . s.exp4 (1)

So our starting hypothesis would need that the galactic second (exp4) evolves with gravity GM/r.exp2, divided by another fixed acceleration, which is MOND a°.

Let's create an "a°" for 165 km/s of predicted newtonian speed (galactic mass about 1e41) and 220 km/s of measured speed :

V.exp4 = GMa° (MOND) hence a° = V.exp4 / GM = 3,5e-10 m/s² For V = 220km/s
V = rcn(GM/R) (NEWT) so V = 165km/s

With this a° and considering that all the galaxy mass M = 1e41 is inside Sun orbit 8 kpc radius, G = 6,67e-11, we may estimate the following galactic seconds using (1) :

8 kpc : 1 sg = 0,75 earth s (of course also 165 km/s divided by 220 km/s)
12 kpc : 1 sg = 0,61 earth s
16 kpc : 1 sg = 0,53 earth s
48 kpc : 1 sg = 0,30 earth s (LMC distance, without accounting for its own mass)

In earth velocities, using local galactic second above value in our good old Newton thing v = rcn(GM/r), in place of the s.exp-2 of the gravitional constant G, we find about 220 km/s for all 4 galactic distances. So far, so good, but this is what we were aiming at.

Nevertheless, it seems to mean that with a time varying with very low gravities, we could quite easily describe the rotational curve of the galaxies, without need for dark matter nor gravity change.

I will stop there for the maths, they are not my thing.

The implications are quite immense, much too big for me. Scary big, really.

Some random thoughts :

It turns out that the LY seems a a very improper distance mesure in far space. Expressed in our own unit of time, it is highly variable and strongly linked to weak gravity fields. It is perfectly possible to exceed speed of light if measured with our second, in weak gravities : for example, at far edge of Milky Way (say, where Sw = 0,5 Ss), light goes 600000 km in one of our second (and 300000 km in one local second, of course). Maybe that speed of light is not so good to describe galactic and greater distances.

Think of the time for light to cross the Bootes void, far from the galaxies gravities : not so long, maybe ?... But only for us and our own time, because the poor astronauts trying to cross it would die of age not far away ... Travelling in very weak gravity fields at speed of light should have in fact the opposite time effects of those predicted by classic relativity. I guess that many things happening in very weak gravity fields are mirroring those predicted by relativity in very strong fields.

Weak second perhaps goes towards 0 when gravity goes towards 0. Perhaps time does not even exist in the absence of a gravity field. Time looks like a direct product of gravity, in (1). But maybe there is a minimum second and a minimum gravity = the second created by universe gravity after the Big Bang ?... If that minimum second exists, deep in Bootes void, it is probably far less than 0,30s : figure out if min sec is lower, there is no upper limit for universe age ... will the Big Bang survive that ?

The galaxies could indeed be as many km away than we think ... but maybe we don't see them so far in the past, as we used to think (... same for the stars of our galaxy, in a lesser way). Measured with our local time, light should be faster in weak gravity, and vastly faster when crossing intergalactic space.

Maybe that the "flyby anomaly" of our spacecrafts is due to the change in relative forces between planet gravity and solar gravity, which have not the exact same time, even in this scale of "strong" gravities.

There are many, many other implications, of course. Much more that I can think of.

Way too big for me, moreover now everybody think I am mad …

Thanks for your forum

Christophe

2. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,732
Originally Posted by weakgtime
Abstract : a very simple explanation for the flat rotation curve of the galaxies, and maybe a great change in our science and perception of the universe.

After all, very strong gravities stretch time ; maybe that very weak ones compress time ?...
Welcome to CQ, Christophe.

I'm afraid that your proposal is fatally flawed. There have been many tests that effectively falsify any "weak g-field time compression" effect. For example, the Apollo astronauts were in communication with the Earth as they passed through a region of negligible net gravitational force. The carrier frequency of their radio transmissions was unchanged, other than by the amount expected from Doppler shift.
Last edited by Geo Kaplan; 2018-Oct-25 at 09:48 PM.

3. Member
Join Date
Oct 2018
Posts
10
Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan
Welcome to CQ, Christophe.

I'm afraid that your proposal is fatally flawed. There have been many tests that effectively falsify any "weak g-field time compression" effect. For example, the Apollo astronauts were in communication with the Earth as they passed through a region of negligible net gravitational force. The frequency of their transmissions were unchanged, other than by the amount expected from Doppler shift.
Thanks Geo,
I deeply need challenge.

By weak gravity I mean galactic scale gravities and below. All solar system is excluded. All stars and planets. All have our time. But stars orbits around galaxies have another time.

The only local effect I can think of, maybe, is the flyby anomaly but we will find others I guess.

C

4. Member
Join Date
Oct 2018
Posts
10
…. and I mean gravity fields, not about forces applied to matter.
Thanks again
C

5. Member
Join Date
Oct 2018
Posts
10
Something like total gravitational forces at this point, not resulting ones.
I did not find too much information/facts about weak-g field time compression … I am sure that many respectable scientists have explored this side of gravity/relativity but it is very complicated maths, wouldn't be possible that there is something missed ? We can not go to these places, but we can see stars orbiting galaxies …
C

6. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,732
Originally Posted by weakgtime
Thanks Geo,
I deeply need challenge.

By weak gravity I mean galactic scale gravities and below. All solar system is excluded. All stars and planets. All have our time. But stars orbits around galaxies have another time.

The only local effect I can think of, maybe, is the flyby anomaly but we will find others I guess.

C
I'm not aware of any "flyby anomaly". If you are referring to Pioneer 10, no anomaly remains.

You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid. Either gravity affects time, or it doesn't. How would a photon "know" whether the gravity is local or global? The fact that signals from Apollo behaved exactly as expected, absent your proposed mechanism, would seem to be fatal. But if you are going to invoke a flyby anomaly as possible support, then you must accept that the absence of unexplained frequency shifts from Pioneer (and the Voyagers) truly doom your proposal.

7. Member
Join Date
Oct 2018
Posts
10
Not about Pioneers, I was thinking of the very small acceleration not accounted for during earth flyby of some other spacecrafts (Galileo, NEAR, Rosetta ...). I should not have evoked that.
Why a photon would need to know about gravity if it has a good watch ?
Sorry but I don't see your point about electromagnetic waves.
My "mechanism" doesn't imply any revolution in the solar system, same time everywhere, big gravity place. Even the Voyagers, perhaps, are not far enough for us to be able to detect anything.

8. Member
Join Date
Oct 2018
Posts
10
The photon could discretly "decelerate" with time, arriving in the solar system gravity, don't see why it would tell us in a frequency shift. It's "speed" has not changed, just time.

C

9. Member
Join Date
Oct 2018
Posts
10
I was speaking of the photon coming from far outside, not the ones from Voyager, still too close ?...
Solar gravity voyager I 140 UA : 3e-7
Galaxy gravity same place : about 1e-10

C

10. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,021
Originally Posted by weakgtime
Abstract : a very simple explanation for the flat rotation curve of the galaxies, and maybe a great change in our science and perception of the universe.
...
Welcome weakgtime.
It is measurements of orbital speeds that show that they are non-relativistic within mainstream science. Likewise GR states that a weak gravitational field as in galactic gravitational fields is non-relativistic. Those two criteria means that stars and gas have Newtonian orbits in galaxies. It is the deviation from Newtonian predictions that gives one of the many lines of evidence for dark matter.

Gravity is the effect of mass and gravity on spacetime, not just space or time alone.

The big problem with your idea is those many lines of observational evidence for dark matter. The other lines mean that dark matter must exist. That means that dark matter exists in galaxies which is what your idea denies.

You first should explain why we do not detect your proposed "weak g" effects elsewhere. Most of the universe has relatively weak gravity. That is not just an assertion that it must only apply on a certain scale.
Why do we not literally see gravitational redshifts? For example, should astronauts on the International Space Station be reporting that the Earth looks red?
Would this "weak g" effect make GPS satellites not work (they have to be adjusted for GR to work)?
What effects would this "weak g" effect have on the light emitted by gas in galaxies, e.g. the many observations of gas inside the Milky Way?
There is the Sachs–Wolfe effect - CMB photons passing trough supervoids should also have a "weak g" effect.
Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Oct-26 at 02:40 AM.

11. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,732
Originally Posted by weakgtime
…. and I mean gravity fields, not about forces applied to matter.
So? My statement has nothing to do with the distinction. I am simply pointing out what follows logically from your premise: "Time changes in weak gravity."

12. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,732
Originally Posted by weakgtime
Why a photon would need to know about gravity if it has a good watch ?
Because photons don't have "good watches," (they don't have internal structure in which to embed a watch, for one thing) and certainly not in your theory! Time changes, so frequency changes.

Sorry but I don't see your point about electromagnetic waves.
Obviously. But you need to realize that your theory says that in regions of weak gravity, you will get frequency shifts because the time taken by a period has changed, by your postulate!

My "mechanism" doesn't imply any revolution in the solar system, same time everywhere, big gravity place. Even the Voyagers, perhaps, are not far enough for us to be able to detect anything.
You seem to be making up ad hoc assertions that do not follow from what you wrote in the first post. Your theory is DOA if "weak gravity" has to be weaker than what Apollo experienced, and what our deep-space probes have experienced. If gravity has to be weaker still, you would not be able to explain galactic rotation curves using your theory while still explaining why we observed no frequency shift with any of these probes' transmissions. You have an irreconcilable conflict -- your theory has been disconfirmed.

13. Member
Join Date
Oct 2018
Posts
10
OK, you have disconfirmed my theory. I feel a little better ... but not too much.

You are right, "time changes with weak gravities" is not correct and it's not exactly what I meant.

I should have say something like "time changes with the sum of gravitational forces".

Thank you to have pointed that out. I apologize for this imprecision. Let's add all gravitational forces value of the place and forget their directions and results on moving objects.

Apollo and ISS and all where not in 0g field as I imagine. They were experiencing 0g resulting from a bunch of other g. I mean all these g's together at the place. Not the resulting ones. Apollo were still experiencing all these g, all time.

Many observational evidence for dark matter ? Well, I do not agree with you.

I am very confident in our science generally speaking, but very doubtul about CDM. Maybe CDM is quite efficient and very real, but for now it's only our own maths. And the idea comes from galaxy rotation curves. And it needs too much "invisible" things to work for my liking.

Suppose a star on the outer edge of galaxy, where the galactic second would be for example 0,33 s-earth. Its lights goes 900000 km/s-earth (after it had left the star high g field), "slow" down with galactic second slowly increasing towards sun, and come back to our 300000 km/s-earth when arriving near sun, what frequency shifts would we see ? I am not sure, with s and c all over the place during the trip. Wouldn'it be possible that the frequency shifts from deep space are not exactly what we think ?... Time variation could be a great game changer.

I don't know the cause of ISW nor CMB irregularities and they may be explained with dark energy, but I don't feel reassured by these dark things.

Thanks again for your replies.

Christophe

14. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,732
Originally Posted by weakgtime
Many observational evidence for dark matter ? Well, I do not agree with you.

I am very confident in our science generally speaking, but very doubtul about CDM. Maybe CDM is quite efficient and very real, but for now it's only our own maths. And the idea comes from galaxy rotation curves. And it needs too much "invisible" things to work for my liking.

Suppose a star on the outer edge of galaxy, where the galactic second would be for example 0,33 s-earth. Its lights goes 900000 km/s-earth (after it had left the star high g field), "slow" down with galactic second slowly increasing towards sun, and come back to our 300000 km/s-earth when arriving near sun, what frequency shifts would we see ? I am not sure, with s and c all over the place during the trip. Wouldn'it be possible that the frequency shifts from deep space are not exactly what we think ?... Time variation could be a great game changer.
One of the hardest things about coming up with a new theory is to avoid breaking things that already work. It is relatively easy to come up with isolated "fixes" that take care of one narrow set of phenomena, but hard for that fix not to break everything else. The reason that the lambda-CDM model is currently en vogue is that it is the best that we have. It makes predictions that are in accord with observation, and it does not break other things. That's pretty much all that we can ask of a theory. If you think that you have something better, that's great. The hard part, though, beyond showing that it might explain a particular set of observations in a more satisfying way (at least to you), is to show that it does not make other predictions that are inconsistent with observations.

15. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,732
Originally Posted by weakgtime
Many observational evidence for dark matter ? Well, I do not agree with you.
That's a perfectly reasonable position, as "many" has no fixed quantitative meaning.

I am very confident in our science generally speaking, but very doubtul about CDM. Maybe CDM is quite efficient and very real, but for now it's only our own maths. And the idea comes from galaxy rotation curves.
That's not quite right. Among the evidence in favor of the lambda-CDM model is the observed gravitational lensing (which your "weak-gravity-alters-time" theory does not reproduce); and it's not just that and GRCs. Additional evidence comes from small, but important, anisotropies in the CMB. These are consistent with the putative amount of CDM inferred on the basis of lensing observations. Yes, that could be a mere coincidence, but you need to invoke several coincidences to explain lensing, CMB, GRCs, velocity dispersions in elliptical galaxies, etc. The more coincidences you require, along with a collection of ad hoc explanations invented to explain these observations without CDM, militate very much against parsimony. So, until a better model comes along, most scientists prefer lambda-CDM. You don't like dark matter? Fine. Join the club. If you have a better model, you have yet to present it. By "better" is not meant one that you prefer. Your model must do at least as well as the current mainstream model, and do something better on top of that. That's a tall order. I look forward to your presentation. Maths will be involved, rather than mere assertions.

16. Member
Join Date
Oct 2018
Posts
10
I agree with you and these sound scientific principles.
But for the moment I still don't see clearly why my idea would break something we know for sure. I understand your point about gravitational lensing but it also depends on c and s, so not too sure.
I'm afraid I am not able to see if replacing dark matter by low g time variation in a model would make nice galaxies and clusters. Would have been curious to know, though.
Thanks again

17. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,732
Originally Posted by weakgtime
I agree with you and these sound scientific principles.
But for the moment I still don't see clearly why my idea would break something we know for sure. I understand your point about gravitational lensing but it also depends on c and s, so not too sure.
Well, the burden is on you to show that your theory can explain, at minimum, all the observations that the current lambda-CDM model is able to explain. It is especially important for you to describe how, experimentally or observationally, one could distinguish your theory from the mainstream's. The floor is yours.

18. Member
Join Date
Oct 2018
Posts
10
This is scientist job that I am unable to do.
If it's really something new which does not blow up so easily, I am sure it will be checked someday.
If it is indeed discarded rapidly, perhaps I won't even know, and I will go on fearing that almost all our knowledge about far space and universe could be deeply flawed. Not just about CDM, you see.
But maybe time will tell me.
C

19. Originally Posted by weakgtime
This is scientist job that I am unable to do.
weakgtime,

When you start a thread in the ATM forum, you assume the role of scientist for the purpose of discussion. Our rules require that you defend and directly answer questions about claims that you present. This isn’t the place to speculate, spitball, collaborate, or otherwise discuss ideas you cannot support. If you cannot or do not wish to defend your claims, please say so and this thread will be closed.

20. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,021
Originally Posted by weakgtime
I should have say something like "time changes with the sum of gravitational forces". ...
What matters in science is whether there is evidence to support what is said. That is what is lacking for your idea. What we would hope for is a graph of your predicted galaxy rotation curves against measured galaxy rotations curves.

Gravity is not shielded. Everything is in the sum of the gravitational forces of all of the masses in the universe. But gravity has an inverse square law. There are many gravitational forces that can be neglected because the masses are far away. For satellites orbiting the Earth, that sum is the Earth + the Moon + the Sun.
ETA: We have very precise clocks in the GPS satellites. So the question is whether your "weak g" idea will measurably affect those clocks.

Originally Posted by weakgtime
Many observational evidence for dark matter ? Well, I do not agree with you.
The many different lines of observational evidence for dark matter is a scientific fact. The Wikipedia article lists 11 of them.
The earliest evidence from the 1930's was the observation that the kinetics of galaxies in galactic clusters could not be explained by the visible matter so there had to be undetected matter. At the time that may have been just visible matter that we could not detect. We added to the visible matter with better telescopes until we were confident of detecting it all but there is still a need for dark matter.
The best evidence for dark matter is the separation of the gases in colliding galaxy clusters. Normal gas will collide, heat up and emit x-rays that can be detected so we can map this normal gas. We can use gravitational lensing to map out all of the gas. The maps disagree. There is dark matter separated from the visible matter. The first detection of this separation was in the Bullet Cluster.

These observations are a problem for your idea. There is an even lower "weak g" than that for stars in galaxies. Thus there should be more dark matter found. But there is less (lots of dark matter in total but in a vastly larger volume then a galaxy).
Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Oct-28 at 10:21 PM.

21. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,021
Originally Posted by weakgtime
I don't know the cause of ISW nor CMB irregularities and they may be explained with dark energy, but I don't feel reassured by these dark things.
The causes of the "ISW or CMB irregularities" are explained in the linked article and a little in my post. There are really big voids (supervoids) with few galaxies in them. A CMB photon starts to travels thru one. For a static universe, the photon would be equally red and blue shifted by falling into and out of the super "weak g" in the void. But the universe is expanding. There a different gravitational field to climb out of. Thus there is a net gravitational shift.

22. It appears to me that this ATMer is arguing against dark matter out of incredulity and has created a kludge in a quest to address this one issue. We could just as easily reject his weak gravity and time idea out of incredulity and offer either dark matter or MOND as relatively simple alternatives. It boils down to exhaustively testing each model against all types of observations, not just those covering a narrow topic, and to see which gives the best agreement.

23. Originally Posted by Hornblower
It appears to me that this ATMer is arguing [...]
"this ATMer" has chosen a forum name that he wishes to be addressed with, and you can at least do him the courtesy of using that name instead of talking about weakgtime in 3rd person as if he or she is not even here.

24. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,732
Originally Posted by weakgtime
This is scientist job that I am unable to do.
It seems that you are saying that you don't have the ability to defend your ATM proposal -- is that a correct interpretation?

..and I will go on fearing that almost all our knowledge about far space and universe could be deeply flawed. Not just about CDM, you see.
But that's a quite trivial and essentially useless worry, in the sense that you are basing this fear on nothing other than a rather vague feeling. The reason scientists run experiments is precisely to test what they know. You seem to have an implicit belief that scientists smugly believe that they know everything. The actual truth is that scientists -- particularly ones early in their career -- hope to find flaws in the current understanding. That's what gets the big prizes, paper citations, and tenure. But they have to support their assertions with other than vague feelings that "things as we understand them may be flawed."

You seem to have done only the trivially easy part, which is to suspect that existing theories are flawed. The harder part is to show that you have a viable alternative. And again, that's devilishly difficult, as you need to do much more than merely fix what you allege is broken; you must also show that the fix doesn't break what already seems to work. Many non-scientists fail to appreciate the magnitude of that task, and incorrectly interpret the seeming absence of new, revolutionary theories as a sign of smugness. Instead, the reality is that quite-radical proposals are discussed and published all the time, but die off for failure to do better than the mainstream. For understandable reasons the failures don't get nearly as much airtime in the lay media as the successes, so those not in the field often acquire a grossly distorted picture of what scientists do. Mostly it's "Damn. This idea doesn't work, either. Time for another pint."

25. Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan
It seems that you are saying that you don't have the ability to defend your ATM proposal -- is that a correct interpretation?

But that's a quite trivial and essentially useless worry, in the sense that you are basing this fear on nothing other than a rather vague feeling. The reason scientists run experiments is precisely to test what they know. You seem to have an implicit belief that scientists smugly believe that they know everything. The actual truth is that scientists -- particularly ones early in their career -- hope to find flaws in the current understanding. That's what gets the big prizes, paper citations, and tenure. But they have to support their assertions with other than vague feelings that "things as we understand them may be flawed."

You seem to have done only the trivially easy part, which is to suspect that existing theories are flawed. The harder part is to show that you have a viable alternative. And again, that's devilishly difficult, as you need to do much more than merely fix what you allege is broken; you must also show that the fix doesn't break what already seems to work. Many non-scientists fail to appreciate the magnitude of that task, and incorrectly interpret the seeming absence of new, revolutionary theories as a sign of smugness. Instead, the reality is that quite-radical proposals are discussed and published all the time, but die off for failure to do better than the mainstream. For understandable reasons the failures don't get nearly as much airtime in the lay media as the successes, so those not in the field often acquire a grossly distorted picture of what scientists do. Mostly it's "Damn. This idea doesn't work, either. Time for another pint."
My bold. A case in point could be MOND. I don't know all the details, but it appears that Dr. Milgrom modified Newton's inverse square formula in such a way that the difference is negligible close to the Sun but large percentagewise on the galactic scale. It reportedly works better than plausible dark matter distributions in many galaxies but not as well in intergalactic space. Now suppose it can be tweaked to work well in both realms. Now it is time to hold our breath and keep our fingers crossed. Since for gravity GR asymptotically approaches Newton at long range and low energy levels, MOND would require a revision of GR with the hope that such a revision does not break other things that GR fixed.

26. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,732
(Bump)
Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan
It seems that you are saying that you don't have the ability to defend your ATM proposal -- is that a correct interpretation?
From your silence, it would seem that you have given us an implicit answer in the affirmative. That said, it would be nice to have a more direct communication from you. Are you still thinking about additional arguments, or have you lost interest and are simply allowing the clock to run out?

27. The OP last logged in 10 days ago, so this thread is closed.

weakgtime,

If you wish to resume this discussion prior to the expiration of its 30-day time limit, please report this post to ask that it be reopened.

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•