I apologize, then. I guess I glossed over that part of the rules, and didn't realize that such discussions were basically not allowed. Though I really did not know where the line between overly speculative was drawn. The idea was an extension of standardly held principles, so I didn't think it was too speculatory. And I did reference a link provided that seemed to support the idea (and even acknowledged it was non-Lorentzian) and he was an MIT scientist. (Or is string theory not considered mainstream here? I'm not being facetious; I know that to some, it isn't; for they dismiss it so hard as to be, in their words; "not even wrong"). (And I don't see how it not off-topic, because it was about general relativity, which was the sub-forum it was placed under). I still think the whole "self-contradictory" charge was being pontificated a bit too quickly (and used as the main opposition) without considering the other frame of reference, which balanced it out. It just didn't fit the current convention (As most theories don't in the beginning. Just saw an example of this on the new Briane Greene show last night), and that's was the real reason it is "wrong" according to the board rules. So again; I'm terribly sorry if this was not a place to debate such ideas.