What about working with the contradiction instead of making word nit pickings?
The subject was rebuttal, which is done using words. Your reference to birds and updrafts doesn't contradict science's claims about gravity, and so is not a rebuttal of those claims.
Explain by what dynamic means it should work, then.
I can't and don't need it to predict its effects. That's complete knowledge. Anything else is metaphysical speculation. Even if I postulate a god, that still wouldn't tell us anything useful about gravity. I wonder why you and Cladking keep asking this answerless question. Surely you know that there are no answers, so perhaps you are asking a rhetorical question and making a statement of some sort. If so, until either of you state explicitly where you're going with these, I can only guess what it is. Usually, its a theist trying to make his deity seem more necessary or likely, but I'm not certain that either of you are theists. Maybe you're believers in advanced historical humans or extraterrestrials, although I don't know how that would lead one to keep returning to, "Why is there gravity" or "what makes it work?"
To which Newton qualified excellently making his occult superstitious theory which failed in galactic realms - in which our Solar System is an integrated formative and orbital part.
Newtons superstitions were his theism and his belief in alchemy. And there you go on again referring to failure. Newtonian mechanics was sufficient to take man to the moon and back. That's success, and that science works for almost all applications, which occur on and around earth.
You have an unexplainable gravity which doesn´t work in galaxies and now also a "dark matter" which isn´t explained or found, hence you have nothing firm to hang your hat on at all. That is but a lot of loose cosmological claims.
Gravity works in galaxies. It's effects are present everywhere there is matter. It's why there are galaxies and relatively few stars in intergalactic space rather than stars strewn evenly through space. It's why Andromeda and the Milky Way are coming together to collide. Perhaps you meant by gravity not working in galaxies that assuming that there was only ordinary matter in galaxies lead to inconsistencies in galactic dynamics that resulted in postulating dark matter. If so, that's not about gravity not working.
It's about gravity IS working, more than it ought to be given the amount of matter known to be in a galaxy in the form of stars, rocks, dust, and gas. Galactic gravitational effects also led to the discovery of our galaxy's central supermassive black hole, Sagittarius A*. The motions of close orbiting stars required the presence of a large, then invisible, central galactic mass. A supermassive black hole was posited to exist there to account for those gravitational effect, which has since been photographed - or at least the hot gas surrounding it has been.
Dark matter need not be explained or found beyond it's effect on ordinary matter, but in this case, since we're discussing physics rather than metaphysics, very well may someday be explained.
I question modern science because it´s hopelessly insufficient and unnormal and often contradicted and pathed with lots of biased ad hoc assumptions.
This is close to what I just addressed with Cladking. Here is another claim that there is a problem. What problem? What are the undesirable consequences of these defects you see in science, and what are your remedies? I'm assuming that you have no specific complaint or solution, just a general disesteem for science and a desire to undermine its authority.
So you say that science is hopelessly insufficient? It seems to be doing a pretty good job for us getting our messages around the world real time. Speaking of which, somebody wrote the following which I think nicely states the problem with this anti-science posture:
- "You stare into your high definition plasma screen monitor, type into your cordless keyboard then hit enter, which causes your computer to convert all that visual data into a binary signal that's processed by millions of precise circuits. This is then converted to a frequency modulated signal to reach your wireless router where it is then converted to light waves and sent along a large fiber optics cable to be processed by a super computer on a mass server. This sends that bit you typed to a satellite orbiting the earth that was put there through the greatest feats of engineering and science, all so it could go back through a similar pathway to make it all the way here to my computer monitor 15,000 miles away from you just so you could say, "Science is all a bunch of man made hogwash."
And here you have the essence of modern cosmology.
I'd call it the essence of metaphysics: we don't know. The question answered required a metaphysical answer, and reality is fresh out of those, meaning that the answer to all such questions is that we don't know and never will. It's not an impediment to the march of science.
For me, the value of cosmology is in what IS known about the history, contents, and workings of the universe, and what that says about our common reality, our place in it, and where we come from.
