Gravity vs Mass

[Native]

I'm saying effect without mechanism is magic.
Science investigates mechanism, and explains effect. Religion proposes no mechanism, thus explains nothing, ergo: magic.

So, what kind of a factual mechanism is gravity? Dark matter? Dark energy? Black holes? Big Bang? Cosmic Singularities?

Science DO explains many mechanical things in our everyday life - but regarding the overall explanation of cosmos i.e. "The Creation", science really uses magical assumptions and cosmic inventions. They just call it "theories".

 

[Valjean]

I think you need to check out some physics textbooks at the library. A lot is known that you don't seem to be aware of.

 

[Native]

I think you need to check out some physics textbooks at the library. A lot is known that you don't seem to be aware of.

If your reply was addressed to me, I just remind you that even cosmological scientists cannot come up with a common and unified explanation of the overall conditions in cosmos.

I´ll recommend you to read the textbooks with a grain of salt and think for yourself, focusing on all the cosmological problems and lots of surprises from the lastest cosmic discoveries which contradicts the standing ideas in many areas.

 

[gnostic]

So, what kind of a factual mechanism is gravity? Dark matter? Dark energy? Black holes? Big Bang? Cosmic Singularities?

Science DO explains many mechanical things in our everyday life - but regarding the overall explanation of cosmos i.e. "The Creation", science really uses magical assumptions and cosmic inventions. They just call it "theories".

If your reply was addressed to me, I just remind you that even cosmological scientists cannot come up with a common and unified explanation of the overall conditions in cosmos.

I´ll recommend you to read the textbooks with a grain of salt and think for yourself, focusing on all the cosmological problems and lots of surprises from the lastest cosmic discoveries which contradicts the standing ideas in many areas.

You don’t seem to understand that are many cosmological models, and only few of them have made the grades of being “scientific theory”.

The rest of the models are still only in hypothetical or theoretical stages...meaning they are like a draft or proposed explanation, not yet accepted as “science”.

Until these proposed models are tested and supported/verified/validated with evidence, people may accept or reject hypotheses and theoretical models.

Of all the models, only the Big Bang cosmology in relation to the origin of this observable universe have been accepted as scientific theory.

Other models, like the Cyclical model (also known as the Oscillating Universe model or the Big Bounce), where the universe go through a series of Bang (expansion) and Crunch (contraction), hence a series of death and rebirth - this model is still theoretical. Meaning, while the cyclical model is logically and mathematically possible, so far it hasn’t been testable, so it is still improbable. So the cyclical cosmological model isn’t a scientific theory.

Likewise, the popular Multiverse model, is mathematically possible, but in the observable-and-testable-evidence department, it failed to be testable, so the Multiverse model isn’t a scientific theory.

Multiverse is popular because it is often portrayed in science fiction novels, movies and tv series, along with M-theory (which is a subset or extension of String Theory, relating to alternate reality), as cash cow.

String Theory (including the popular M-theory) and Superstring Theory are both theoretical models, not scientific theories.

The String Theory & Superstring Theory were meant to unify both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into a single scientific theory, a theory for everything, and while the maths is better than good, the reality is that neither of them work in the real world.

General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics worked fine, independently as separate scientific theories, but just doesn’t work well together.

My points in all this, theoretical models have the potential of being true, but they can only be true, if you are able to test it. There is more reality than just maths; science can only be science if you have observable, testable and verifiable evidence.

General Relativity was a former theoretical model, when it started out, but scientists have managed to scientifically test it, and in the last hundred years in so many ways, it has been scientific model since 1920s.

 

[Thief]

and the devil said.....if you BE the Son of God....
step from this high ledge and the angels will catch your fall

the Carpenter didn't fall for that one

I think He understood

 

[Thief]

and then later He walked on water

 

[rational experiences]

If a male says I am first a natural human being male and God, O the stone is my Creator, in science would he not be making that statement as a scientist?

As a living natural bio human, I know that my 2 human being parents having sex created my life and the life of humans existed in this status for how many thousands or millions of years we have been human. And before our 2 parents no other human was having sex.

Science on Earth would claim and God is the Creator of my science.

For if no stone existed, then nor would an atmosphere and humans live inside of that atmosphere standing on the stone body.

Is stone in science created?

The answer would be yes. God is the mass.

Science therefore took God, the mass and shifted it by building the first machine...using the mass of stone.

And he cut the blocks of the building into PHI....and then owned whatever metal machine materials.

How the first science quote of MASS inside of an atmospheric body was applied in the state natural.

Therefore all the so called LAWS existed in natural O planetary presence.

If a male like he does, say I do not really know what will occur in natural when I activate my machine reaction..…...which is the truth...he never knows.

And the first pyramid use was a cause and effect ground reaction fission, then it was.

With an unnatural ufo RADIATION metal mass that did not support natural life existing as original natural life....just as the stories of God and science O the planet state. For it includes the male owning the experience.

Males know that they can forcibly change the state natural fusion, in a radiation mass.

So whatever stone once owned in its fusion, it was removed in a reaction.

Everytime Earth by MASS is UFO radiation metal attacked, it changes its fusion and displaces how it was previously fused into a new status of fusion.

The UFO mass event Sun history says.....activation of the Sun collapse/blasting of Earth how I gained my science theme on Earth.

Activation no longer active.....all forms of converting owning natural masses, as comets/asteroids and God the stone mass changed. What science no longer owned in its thinking theme...how to convert.

And it was an attack, not any constant, it was a streaming held attack that lasted as long as it did until it was stopped....the basis of the original themes for human male sciences on Earth.

Science however in his machine owned/controlled activated use applied constant change....did and caused a one of reaction to the fusion. Learnt new science in that experiment and then applied the constant his own self. Still does that same application today.

STudies the incoming UFO radiation metal mass just for his science, removing a huge body of mass to own electricity. Electricity does not exist until it is forced to exist. Electricity gets used up and it is removed...and remains used and removed. Science lies about what it claims it represents when a human male thinks, uses group coercive reasoning and then attacks natural life.

 

[gnostic]

If a male says I am first a natural human being male and God, O the stone is my Creator, in science would he not be making that statement as a scientist?

As a living natural bio human, I know that my 2 human being parents having sex created my life and the life of humans existed in this status for how many thousands or millions of years we have been human. And before our 2 parents no other human was having sex.

Science on Earth would claim and God is the Creator of my science.

For if no stone existed, then nor would an atmosphere and humans live inside of that atmosphere standing on the stone body.

Is stone in science created?

The answer would be yes. God is the mass.

Science therefore took God, the mass and shifted it by building the first machine...using the mass of stone.

And he cut the blocks of the building into PHI....and then owned whatever metal machine materials.

How the first science quote of MASS inside of an atmospheric body was applied in the state natural.

Therefore all the so called LAWS existed in natural O planetary presence.

If a male like he does, say I do not really know what will occur in natural when I activate my machine reaction..…...which is the truth...he never knows.

And the first pyramid use was a cause and effect ground reaction fission, then it was.

With an unnatural ufo RADIATION metal mass that did not support natural life existing as original natural life....just as the stories of God and science O the planet state. For it includes the male owning the experience.

Males know that they can forcibly change the state natural fusion, in a radiation mass.

So whatever stone once owned in its fusion, it was removed in a reaction.

Everytime Earth by MASS is UFO radiation metal attacked, it changes its fusion and displaces how it was previously fused into a new status of fusion.

The UFO mass event Sun history says.....activation of the Sun collapse/blasting of Earth how I gained my science theme on Earth.

Activation no longer active.....all forms of converting owning natural masses, as comets/asteroids and God the stone mass changed. What science no longer owned in its thinking theme...how to convert.

And it was an attack, not any constant, it was a streaming held attack that lasted as long as it did until it was stopped....the basis of the original themes for human male sciences on Earth.

Science however in his machine owned/controlled activated use applied constant change....did and caused a one of reaction to the fusion. Learnt new science in that experiment and then applied the constant his own self. Still does that same application today.

STudies the incoming UFO radiation metal mass just for his science, removing a huge body of mass to own electricity. Electricity does not exist until it is forced to exist. Electricity gets used up and it is removed...and remains used and removed. Science lies about what it claims it represents when a human male thinks, uses group coercive reasoning and then attacks natural life.

I must’ve gotten off the wrong floor...I didn’t know that I was entering the Twilight Zone.

* slowly backing away *

 

[rational experiences]

I must’ve gotten off the wrong floor...I didn’t know that I was entering the Twilight Zone.

* slowly backing away *

God O the stone a planet.
God O the stone formed the natural atmosphere....UFO mass radiation converted the Earth, placed the gases back into a hotter radiating past...but God the Earth always owned it.

Natural laws, belong to the planet and not to science and a machine reaction, quite simple if you used your brains for what they were created for.

 

[Native]

and the devil said.....if you BE the Son of God....
step from this high ledge and the angels will catch your fall

the Carpenter didn't fall for that one

And:

and then later He walked on water

As this topic is about "Gravity vs Mass", you have to explain how this was/is possible.

 

[Native]

With an unnatural ufo RADIATION metal mass that did not support natural life existing as original natural life....just as the stories of God and science O the planet state. For it includes the male owning the experience.

WHAT on Earth are your runaway brain spinning about???

 

[gnostic]

WHAT on Earth are you runaway brain spinning about???

Too much spotted purple jello???

 

[Thief]

And:

As this topic is about "Gravity vs Mass", you have to explain how this was/is possible.

well....I wrote the op
and noted a question that cannot be answered as I did so

didn't even bother to state what the question might be

 

[exchemist]

I must’ve gotten off the wrong floor...I didn’t know that I was entering the Twilight Zone.

* slowly backing away *

Allow me to road-test a new euphemism: I think his, ahem, account has been hacked.........

 

[gnostic]

Allow me to road-test a new euphemism: I think his, ahem, account has been hacked.........

Oh...how can you tell?

I mean @rational experiences have been writing a lot of weird things since he had joined RF.

 

[rational experiences]

Oh...how can you tell?

I mean @rational experiences have been writing a lot of weird things since he had joined RF.

You make truly wrong comments about my life and self...for I did not say male nor female....seeing forum readers react against personal status.

When a scientist as the liar that he is, gives his own self male identification to being the Destroyer of natural life. Lives on a natural planet that natural laws belong to in the state natural...and then applies conversion by a forced machine reaction.

Becomes an archaeologist to prove to everyone that males in science had destroyed all life on Earth.

Writes a documented DATA historic review of science in the past as 2 events of near life destruction as Moses and then Jesus...and in both incidences forewarned that he will do it again.

Said to everyone science was invented to remove life off God Earth and you ignore the relative natural information.

What LAWS does science own, in reality?

No machine exists does it....a machine cannot function by its own volition, a male as a human has to build it, then operate the function of it.

So what natural laws does science really own.

As a human living inside of a gas mass atmosphere, that once in space was clear and non lit. Knows that the sun burst and attacked Earth and converted its original fusion. How he studied to learn about sun radiation to attack God stone fusion....the history and reasoning of.

Knew that the clear light gases of Earth metallic irradiated, burnt back to a hotter past radiating stone gas history....seeing science says all history of bodies in space are radiating variations.

Not radiation.....radiating variations.

What he always knew...and wants to lie to everyone today, as we die before we even get to age. And natural bio life and health can only live and survive for about 100 years in radiating attack....and then die. And we begin to die in science radiation levels even before we age...and reckons that he is Mr I know it all.

Not likely.

 

[exchemist]

Oh...how can you tell?

I mean @rational experiences have been writing a lot of weird things since he had joined RF.

As I say, it is a euphemism.

In the same way as you might say a person is one sandwich short of a picnic, or has bats in the belfry.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You don’t seem to understand that are many cosmological models, and only few of them have made the grades of being “scientific theory”.

The rest of the models are still only in hypothetical or theoretical stages...meaning they are like a draft or proposed explanation, not yet accepted as “science”.

In general, we don't distinguish carefully between the use of words like "theory", "model", etc., in the sciences. Most of the popular literature and discussions on the differences are overly-simplified bunk that groups like the AAAS have been trying to eradicate from textbooks along with the myths about The Scientific Method. There are uses of such words that are distinct in the literature across fields, but more important here is how the terms are used somewhat uniquely in physics specifically.
In physics as in many sciences, models differ in their use of parameters. The standard model of particle physics is just about the best theory in the whole of science, but it is also a model because of the parameters necessary for the theory to yield predictions. There is nothing that prevents models from being theories or the other way around, and both can be known to be quite wrong and still be called theories and models (as Box put it "all models are wrong, but some are useful").

Until these proposed models are tested and supported/verified/validated with evidence, people may accept or reject hypotheses and theoretical models

Again, the distinction between model and theory here is not actually reflected in any of the literature nor is it very accurate. There are plenty of theories that are highly speculative in cosmology, and some of them are models. In foundation physics, cosmology, and a slew of other fields in physics that deal with quantum theory, relativistic physics, ,and field theories, one often finds the word "theory" used to mean "Lagrangian". Of course, the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulations are sort of meta-frameworks in that they are primarily differing ways to apply variational principles along with the action principle to physical theories like quantum mechanics or classical gauge theories or non-relativistic QFT or the product space of representations underlying the standard model and so on.
In this way special relativity is a more general framework than general relativity (despite the latter being a "generalization" of the former) specifically because it is not a theory of anything. It is a framework within which one can formulate both quantum and classical field theories in terms primarily of the Lagrangian framework and point-particle mechanics like QM in terms e.g., of the Hamiltonian (classical electrodynamics is automatically relativistic as the necessary symmetries and invariances are built in to the theory and indeed are largely a consequence of Maxwell's equations). General relativity, on the other hand, is a theory of gravity. It is a much better theory of gravity than Newton's gravitational force. But unlike quantum mechanics, it comes with built in failures that ensure its own demise irrespective of how it will breakdown on microscopic scales or how it cannot be made consistent with quantum theories.

Of all the models, only the Big Bang cosmology in relation to the origin of this observable universe have been accepted as scientific theory.

There isn't just one big bang cosmology, unless you are conflating the classical version with inflationary cosmologies (which are generally accepted and are certainly scientific theories). The big bang theory isn't actually a theory but a consequence of one combined with a name Hoyle used to ridicule the idea.

Likewise, the popular Multiverse model, is mathematically possible, but in the observable-and-testable-evidence department, it failed to be testable, so the Multiverse model isn’t a scientific theory.

There are several multiverse cosmologies. One is eminently testable as it is an interpretation of quantum mechanics. Others are almost certainly correct according to all of our best evidence but are misleading in how they are named. None are really models, of course, as they are classes of theories (some of which include models or are based on models. They different theories tend to be derived from differing assumptions in the mathematical structure and interpreations of empirical observations/scientific data that yield different theories. Different models would be obtained by plugging in different parameters to the same theory or something like one.

The String Theory & Superstring Theory were meant to unify both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into a single scientific theory, a theory for everything, and while the maths is better than good, the reality is that neither of them work in the real world.

String theory started out as a failed attempt to work through problems in Hadronic physics when it appeared that QFT, after its initial successes with QED, was completely inadequate and had to be abandoned. This was at a time when the bootstrap programme and s-matrix theories were still big candidates over and against field theorists. Eventually, with the acceptance of the Quark model and the failure of string theory to even adequately deal with confinement at all, it was temporarily abandoned and QFT became and remains the only working theory explaining elementary interactions via the standard model. String theory is now a name given to a slew of mostly vague ideas with some neat, non-rigorous mathematics which are hoped to eventually move from intuitions to some kind of solid, reasonably well formulated mathematics.
Currently, the math is not better than good, it is about as bad as it is possible to be. It is mostly all problems. String theory is horribly overdetermined as one of the many possible attempts to get off the ground with something like an effective theory failed when it was proved that any attempt at compatification had to face the fact that there are necessarily infinitely many possibile "solution" spaces for any would-be formulation. Nothing in string theory suggests the possibility of removing the divergences which plague the standard model and QFT currently, but rather so far we have more difficult mathematical problems instead of the solution to something that would either make renormalizability coherent and consistent or remove the need for it altogether (either of which is necessary for quantum gravity, as it is non-renormalizable). String theory is essentially ~50 years of failed mathematical attempts which yielded some tremendous results in pure mathematics, but not mathematical physics or theoretical physics.

General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics worked fine, independently as separate scientific theories, but just doesn’t work well together.

Quantum mechanics cannot account for particle annihilation or creation which are necessary for any kind of attempt at explaining any fundamental interactions, including quantum electrodynamics or even just photons, and the field theories we have currently are called effective field theories precisely because they work find up to some scale at which point we insert our cut-off parameter and sweep the infinities predicted by the theories under the rug. This is just find. It is more than fine. It is tremendously accurate. But it is not quantum mechanics, which treats time as a parameter and position as an operator. QM can be made consistent with special relativity and this is what most quantum field theories are: QM with fields in 4-space where position is demoted from an operator acting on the system's state.
GR isn't as successful as special relativity. It is an excellent theory of gravitational force. But it breaks down in numerous ways even in its own domain and allows for ridiculous solutions that cannot be ruled out within the theory (or any other theory) even though they may involve blatant causality violations. And we still don't have a very consistent way of interpreting (or even really necessarily defining) most of the singularities in the theory.

General Relativity was a former theoretical model, when it started out

It was never a model, but a theory. It is still a theory. It was always a theory of gravity. It remains a theory of gravity. It is a theory that has been tested and as a tested theory of gravity it is our best theory of gravity and a great one.

 

[Native]

Again, the distinction between model and theory here is not actually reflected in any of the literature nor is it very accurate. There are plenty of theories that are highly speculative in cosmology, and some of them are models. In foundation physics, cosmology, and a slew of other fields in physics that deal with quantum theory, relativistic physics, ,and field theories, one often finds the word "theory" used to mean "Lagrangian". Of course, the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulations are sort of meta-frameworks in that they are primarily differing ways to apply variational principles along with the action principle to physical theories like quantum mechanics or classical gauge theories or non-relativistic QFT or the product space of representations underlying the standard model and so on.
In this way special relativity is a more general framework than general relativity (despite the latter being a "generalization" of the former) specifically because it is not a theory of anything. It is a framework within which one can formulate both quantum and classical field theories in terms primarily of the Lagrangian framework and point-particle mechanics like QM in terms e.g., of the Hamiltonian (classical electrodynamics is automatically relativistic as the necessary symmetries and invariances are built in to the theory and indeed are largely a consequence of Maxwell's equations). General relativity, on the other hand, is a theory of gravity. It is a much better theory of gravity than Newton's gravitational force. But unlike quantum mechanics, it comes with built in failures that ensure its own demise irrespective of how it will breakdown on microscopic scales or how it cannot be made consistent with quantum theories.

I agree with you all the way.
IMO there is no real cosmological model before they standing theories/assumptions all fit together in all parts i.e. an Unified Model of Everything where fundamental forces also fits together all over the places.

 

[Thief]

and then He ascended......