the term combined as an "effect". I was just dancing around one of you guys accusing me of inventing words and phrases. If you don't like it, don't look.

The other thing, is exactly what you are reading; the "mystery". I try to avoid being identified with that sort of foolishness. There is no mystery of missing mass. The whole damned theory that demands this mass, is wrong.

Do we need this idiotic dark matter mass in our solar system? No? Then give yourself a good shake.

Or do you think we need it to explain the probe trajectory? Then please supply a distribution pattern for it. Can't do it, can you? In fact such a distribution pattern has never been published by anyone anywhere for Dark Matter. Doesn't that seem odd to you?

But I can supply gravitational effect for it. I call it Permanent-Effect Gravity, and it is no more "mysterious" than the shadow cast by an occluding item in front of a light bulb. Too bad it's not something professionals can hold up to the general public and brag about their brilliance.

Tell me, does that book include a mathematical description of how the "mass" properties must be, act and be distributed, or it still the "problem" of trying to assign properties that are rather "exotic"?

Have they decided on WIMPs or MACHOs yet;- or maybe something else?

Have they decided on how the centripetal Dark Matter, or probe's "new force"; mathematically combines with the outward quintessence, such that they do not simply null each other? How do they manage to get inward and outward forces acting independently and at the same time;- selectively? Remember that they say the force on the probe appears to act undiminished out as far as they have measured it, exactly as the shadow of something in front of a light bulb.

I certainly did coin the term "Sextessence", but very obviously as a mere innovation, not invention as such. And I did it sarcastically tongue-in-cheek;- just to clarify that for you.

You must be very, very desperate for something to jump on me about. Are you trying to deflect attention away from your own theory's fatal weaknesses?

• Corrections - cosmotiger - November 20, 2002 - 17:44 UTC
  • Corrections for Harv - kantolfir2 - November 21, 2002 - 03:54 UTC
    • Yes, I support... - rayredbourne - November 21, 2002 - 23:31 UTC
      • Right on - cosmotiger - November 22, 2002 - 02:51 UTC
        • I predict you will super-c after death - yaniru - November 22, 2002 - 15:20 UTC
    • Dark Matter... - rayredbourne - November 21, 2002 - 23:35 UTC
      • There have been no confirmations... - cosmotiger - November 22, 2002 - 02:33 UTC
  • ...would have..., is a..., works? And Hawking. - rayredbourne - November 21, 2002 - 23:02 UTC
    • Blah - cosmotiger - November 22, 2002 - 02:35 UTC
      • More likely that man invented God - yaniru - November 22, 2002 - 15:25 UTC
        • I am glad you are only commenting where you are qualified - carefuluniverse - November 22, 2002 - 17:26 UTC
          • Wrong guy - yaniru - November 22, 2002 - 19:49 UTC
            • Right guy...I don't hold a grudge; I can prove it if necesssa - quiet - November 23, 2002 - 01:02 UTC
              • I did not say this - yaniru - November 23, 2002 - 13:18 UTC
                • Look at the original. It said it paraphrased you - carefuluniverse - November 23, 2002 - 21:46 UTC
                  • Gotcha with that last one...I attributed my statement to you - carefuluniverse - November 23, 2002 - 21:48 UTC
      • Pertinent comment - carefuluniverse - November 22, 2002 - 17:23 UTC