>>Didn't I reply to that already?
>
>Yes you did reply, but you didn't an answer of any substance.
The answer I gave you is the one that agrees with classical physics, as I understand it.
I understand that you have embraced a radically new theory, and dislike the classical theory, but there is really no reason to insist that the explanations given by classical physics are contradictory, 'cause they are not. Nor that I am contradicting myself, as you already claimed. The contradiction is merely between your radically new theory, and the currently accepted physics.
Difference in opinions hath cost many millions of lives: for instance, whether flesh be bread, or bread be flesh; whether whistling be a vice or a virtue; whether it be better to kiss a post, or throw it into the fire... (from Gulliver's Travels)
