« Reply #30 on: February 04, 2011, 01:45:51 PM »
one inexplicable energy source
We may not know the exact mechanics of its workings, but at least gravity is not inexplicable.
It's not inexplicable, you just can't explain it?
We have equations and observed correlations. We may not know its exact workings, but we know how it behaves and can make falsifiable predictions. UA, while very similar to gravity in terms of an "inexplicable energy source," has problems with common phenomena and therefore suffers from greater holes in its theory than gravity. On top of that, gravity is largely consistent with the heavens. You, on the other hand, add another magical system called celestial gears, which has no substantial merit. It follows the same circular logic as bendy light where it exists because it has to exist for FE to work, not because of math or specifically observable phenomena. You want truly inexplicable, you should look at FET more closely.
I'm not saying it wouldn't work or that it's internally inconsistent, I'm saying that it's inexplicable and you can easily prove me wrong by explaining it. So please do.
Fine, so its exact workings are inexplicable. There are still fewer holes with gravity than there are UA and everything related to it, so yes, gravity is more believable, to answer your original question.
Are there? How is everything with mass creating infinite energy more believable than one source of infinite energy?