does the fact that it works count as a logical explanation?
I suppose you are talking about QM or the related fantasy science.
if so then give me an example so that we can examine it and
determine if it really does work.
But at various times on SAGG you have said that those 2 things are wrong. How do you resolve this conflict between your statements?
I believe I have said that it is the misconstrued interpretations of laws that are wrong.
not that the original laws are wrong.
if you know of a feasible reason why a star would
accelerate then lets hear it , but lets keep it feasible
we all know
(those of us that do not follow fantasy science)
that space is not expanding and
causing the acceleration of stars , that is a stupid reason for stupid people.
can you name the force that the proposed expanding space
hypothesis places on / against a star that would cause any such acceleration on a star?
or is that force a imagined / fantasy force?
remember there must be a real force involved to accelerate
a real star or the proposed hypothesis would be breaking original laws.
what would the moment of inertia be for our tiny star?
and everything that it drags along with it?
something else to ponder.
is the mass of all stars proportionate to size?
so that the area that any proposed or imagined force would
apply to a star in order to accelerate the star , would accelerate two stars of equal size that have unequal mass
at the same rate of acceleration?
if the two stars are the same size then the same force is
applied to the surface of the two stars so the acceleration cannot be the same if the two stars have different mass.
unless the expanding space hypothesis has developed a method
of applying different force amounts to objects that have the same size and different mass.
