The "What if...?" - hypothetical scenario

[gnostic]

It seem it´s only you who do that in lack of factual replies.

You lack sense of humor.

But my humor actually included a fact.

I only know of 2 types of “physical” uplift.

1. A garment or bra that support a woman’s bust.
2. And in geology, where earth’s surface move upwards, like island or mountain.

I think you need to choose a more appropriate word to say what you mean, instead of misusing word that you clearly don’t understand its meaning.

 

[gnostic]

If you had just a pinch of true critical sense and scientific overlooking, this statement would have looked very different.
Newton assumed an occult force in the sense of something being unseen and unexplained = superficious which easily lead to assumptions which becomes superstitious.= believing in things which isn´t there.
Exactly this was the case with Newtons "universal laws of celestial motions" which failed blatantly in galactic scales with quite another orbital motion of stars and its planetary systems.
Summary: Newton - and huge numbers of his believers - believed in a force which wasn´t real = they believed in superstitious forces. And after this discovery, scientists simply invented yet another superstitious force called "dark matter" to patch their primary mistake.
And they still go on describing this superstitious force to everything else they don´t understand in cosmos to such extent that "dark matter" and "dark energy" fills the scientific universe with 96 % - all occult and superstitious forces.

You really have no idea what superstition mean.

Superstition is unsubstantiated belief in the supernatural - like supernatural beings, miracles, magic, belief in luck, psychic powers, etc.

Gravity isn’t superstition.

Plus, all natural forces are all “unseen”, eg the four fundamental forces or 4 interactions: strong nuclear, weak nuclear, EM and gravitation, are all unseen, but they are all explainable and they are all demonstrable or testable.

I think I know what’s creating your confusion and misunderstanding in physics.

I know that you believe in the light and EM forces. That’s where you confusion come in.

Light isn’t a force, Native.

What it is, light is a electromagnetic radiation or EM wave. The measurements of any EM radiations, eg visible light, infrared, ultraviolet, microwave, etc, are given as frequency and wavelength, plus photon energy.

Light or visible light, indeed can be seen, including the various colors in the light spectrum.

But the EM interactions or EM forces, on the other hand, unseen, and this particular “force” is define as the interactions between electrical charged particles. You don’t actually see the force, but it can be measured and calculated.

As I said, you cannot any of the forces, but they are all explainable and testable.

And if anything is testable, then you cannot say it is based on superstition.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
It´s only so if you right out ignore the obvious uplift facts which contradicts and works against your occult, unexplainable superstitious gravity.

Contradict means: "deny the truth of (a statement) by asserting the opposite." This is done with words. Updrafts do not contradict gravity, because updrafts don't speak or write.

Your definitions are simply not wide or precise enough.
Contradictions are scientifically not stated intellectually by words, but by factual observations which go against a standing assumption or theory.
"Updrafts" as you generally describe my atmospheric explanations, is a factual observation which goes against the Newtonian downwards pull = Ergo Newtons constant gravity pull is contradicted by a factual observation!

It's not relevant that science can't explain why gravity exists. It's sufficient that it describe its effects mathematically.

Really!? Mathematically you can get anything to fit just by fiddling biasedly with numbers, words for motions and equations. And if your goal is to confirm gravity, you just uses math to biasedly confirm gravity - without having explained anything about by what dynamic means this assumed gravity should work.

Is basically all pure gravitational guesswork's - except from Newtons factual calculations of celestial motions - which he in fact could have inherited from ancestors all over the world without including anything of his occult gravity.

Native said: ↑
Its NOT all a problem of "metaphysics"

No, it's not. Some is physics, such as the factors that account for the rigid motions of galaxies (dark matter) and the accelerating expansion of the universe (dark energy), both which hypotheses I believe you have also called superstition. But the questions about why the physics is the way it is, such as why gravity exists, which are metaphysical in nature, are unanswerable. This seems to be a stumbling block for a few who seem to find this fact confounding and an obstruction to further understanding of science.

You keep on with your orthodox beliefs of gravity which nobody can explain scientifically by what dynamical means it should work - and then you automatically accept other gravitational matters to the first one unexplained, thus going in unconscious circles of no explanations at all. And then you´re writing about "stumbling blocks" and "false claims" of other alternate debaters?

The first of your "stumbling block" is the unknown gravity pull. The second one is cosmic formation via your unknown gravity. The third one is adding further dark this and that objects and forces onto the unexplained gravity. All assumptions en masse and NO scientific explanations en masse as well.

You and I could not have had this discussion remotely like this without it. One of us might be dead or suffering long-haul Covid or in a wheelchair from polio without this science. Do you wear glasses? Cars and air conditioners improve the human condition. Yet we still have people denigrating this achievement. Why? As I said, I have to assume that it is because science does not support a cherished belief they hold.

All this has nothing to do with cosmological discussions - but it reveals your blind belief in everything so called scientific. Personally, I have the global mRNA genom-experiment injections to be outright quackery and dangerous for mankind.

 

[Native]

I think you need to choose a more appropriate word to say what you mean, instead of misusing word that you clearly don’t understand its meaning.

And I think you should hold focus on the posted cosmological matters instead of human matters.

 

[Native]

You really have no idea what superstition mean.
Superstition is unsubstantiated belief in the supernatural - like supernatural beings, miracles, magic, belief in luck, psychic powers, etc.
Gravity isn’t superstition.

Well then show me by what scientific dynamical means gravity works. Even Newtons present colleges accused him for inserting an "occult agency".

I think I know what’s creating your confusion and misunderstanding in physics.
I know that you believe in the light and EM forces. That’s where you confusion come in.
Light isn’t a force, Native.

You think you know - and still you don´t know that LIGHT is made by an Electromagnetic Force Discharge.

As your basic understanding of how LIGHT is made isn´t much worth, I don´t bother to respond on the rest of your not understood reply.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Updrafts" as you generally describe my atmospheric explanations, is a factual observation which goes against the Newtonian downwards pull = Ergo Newtons constant gravity pull is contradicted by a factual observation!

Everything you describe is consistent with Newtonian mechanics.

if your goal is to confirm gravity, you just uses math to biasedly confirm gravity

Gravity is self-evident. Mathematics is the quantify it and accurately predict its effects, not confirm it.

Is basically all pure gravitational guesswork's - except from Newtons factual calculations of celestial motions - which he in fact could have inherited from ancestors all over the world without including anything of his occult gravity.

There is no guesswork in Newtonian celestial motions until he reaches the perimeter of his knowledge, at which time he inserts a deity into his work to keep the solar system stable. His mathematics was incomplete, and he was unable to solve gravitational problems involving more than two bodies. His numbers suggested that the gravitational pull of other planets on the earth would have thrown the earth into the sun or into interstellar space, so, he added the hand of God to his work.

And it's remarkable to see you diminish the importance of that work as a drop of fact in what is "basically all pure gravitational guesswork." It's one of the greatest of human achievements. You do this with all science, but not effectively, since you can't make science's stellar success go away however much you ignore it.

You keep on with your orthodox beliefs of gravity which nobody can explain scientifically by what dynamical means it should work

Gravitational theory works well as is with the current state of knowledge. It worked well with just Newton's contribution centuries ago. My beliefs, which are dicta of science, are demonstrably correct. It's not necessary for you to agree.

The first of your "stumbling block" is the unknown gravity pull. The second one is cosmic formation via your unknown gravity. The third one is adding further dark this and that objects and forces onto the unexplained gravity. All assumptions en masse and NO scientific explanations en masse as well.

None of these are stumbling blocks for me. They seem to be for you, however. They are impediments to your making progress in understanding science and recognizing it for what it is. And another example of false crisis, or claiming that something is a problem for an individual or for science without feeling any need to explain how it is a problem. I have no problems caused by scientific beliefs.

it reveals your blind belief in everything so called scientific

I have no blind beliefs. I have learned how to never believe anything more than the quality and quantity of the available evidence supports. It's a habit of thought one develops thinking critically, one never forgotten when evaluating evidence and arguments, like looking both ways before crossing. I assume that you would never cross the street blindly. If so, you have developed a habit that you never accidentally forget to use, just like NEVER believing ANYTHING blindly.

Even Newtons present colleges accused him for inserting an "occult agency".

I'll assume that you are referring to what I discussed above, or else, Newton's interest in alchemy. The following is from his Principia:

• "The six primary Planets are revolv’d about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane… But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions… This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

If you read Newton, you'll find that he doesn't invoke his deity until he runs out of science and mathematics. As ND Tyson notes writing about this phenomena in the writings of Ptolemy, Newton, and Huygens,

• "[T]he authors invoke divinity only when they reach the boundaries of their understanding. They appeal to a higher power only when staring into the ocean of their own ignorance. They call on God only from the lonely and precarious edge of incomprehension. Where they feel certain about their explanations, however, God gets hardly a mention."

That's when the occult enters the picture, when empiricism changes to faith, and when the useful part of his work changes to the useless part, when the parts that any atheist of sufficient intelligence might have written to the part that only a theist could have written.

 

[cladking]

It's not relevant that science can't explain why gravity exists.

If you don't know what causes it then maybe someone stumbling around in the dark will inadvertently turn it off instead of turning on a light.

How can you possibly believe it doesn't matter?

 

[Native]

Everything you describe is consistent with Newtonian mechanics.

Gravity is self-evident. Mathematics is the quantify it and accurately predict its effects, not confirm it.

There is no guesswork in Newtonian celestial motions until he reaches the perimeter of his knowledge, at which time he inserts a deity into his work to keep the solar system stable. His mathematics was incomplete, and he was unable to solve gravitational problems involving more than two bodies. His numbers suggested that the gravitational pull of other planets on the earth would have thrown the earth into the sun or into interstellar space, so, he added the hand of God to his work.

And it's remarkable to see you diminish the importance of that work as a drop of fact in what is "basically all pure gravitational guesswork." It's one of the greatest of human achievements. You do this with all science, but not effectively, since you can't make science's stellar success go away however much you ignore it.

Gravitational theory works well as is with the current state of knowledge. It worked well with just Newton's contribution centuries ago. My beliefs, which are dicta of science, are demonstrably correct. It's not necessary for you to agree.

None of these are stumbling blocks for me. They seem to be for you, however. They are impediments to your making progress in understanding science and recognizing it for what it is. And another example of false crisis, or claiming that something is a problem for an individual or for science without feeling any need to explain how it is a problem. I have no problems caused by scientific beliefs.

I have no blind beliefs. I have learned how to never believe anything more than the quality and quantity of the available evidence supports. It's a habit of thought one develops thinking critically, one never forgotten when evaluating evidence and arguments, like looking both ways before crossing. I assume that you would never cross the street blindly. If so, you have developed a habit that you never accidentally forget to use, just like NEVER believing ANYTHING blindly.

I'll assume that you are referring to what I discussed above, or else, Newton's interest in alchemy. The following is from his Principia:

• "The six primary Planets are revolv’d about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane… But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions… This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

If you read Newton, you'll find that he doesn't invoke his deity until he runs out of science and mathematics. As ND Tyson notes writing about this phenomena in the writings of Ptolemy, Newton, and Huygens,

• "[T]he authors invoke divinity only when they reach the boundaries of their understanding. They appeal to a higher power only when staring into the ocean of their own ignorance. They call on God only from the lonely and precarious edge of incomprehension. Where they feel certain about their explanations, however, God gets hardly a mention."

That's when the occult enters the picture, when empiricism changes to faith, and when the useful part of his work changes to the useless part, when the parts that any atheist of sufficient intelligence might have written to the part that only a theist could have written.

OK, I give up on your stands in general, as all of it is seemingly only based on intellectual inputs without having any independent critical thinking or oversights over what is real cosmological science or factual contradictions.

For about 100 years standing cosmology have searched for dark this or that because it can´t explain by what dynamic means their highly praised "gravity" should work, or what other fundamental forces do in cosmos.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

OK, I give up on your stands in general, as all of it is seemingly only based on intellectual inputs without having any independent critical thinking or oversights over what is real cosmological science or factual contradictions.

I don't know what you are telling me here. It sounds like you are saying that my position is based in intellectual inputs, which is normally a good thing considering the alternatives, but that I should have had some kind of supervision from independent critical thinkers regarding what you are calling "real cosmological science or factual contradictions."

Can you see where I might not be able to parse your meaning from those words? What exactly are you critiquing in my approach to learning cosmology, and what undesirable consequence has it produced? Do you think I should have hired tutors? Did you think that my reading didn't include the critical thinking of minds independent from mine and should have, perhaps because without it, I've gone off the cosmology reservation at some unstated cost to me? Your words all exude that something is wrong with science, and now me, and that there is some crisis or harm that you are trying to help mitigate with your warnings, but then produce no specifics, so I have to conclude that you're referring to a nonexistent problem.

For about 100 years standing cosmology have searched for dark this or that because it can´t explain by what dynamic means their highly praised "gravity" should work, or what other fundamental forces do in cosmos.

Yes, cosmologists have been studying the origin, development, and composition of the cosmos for decades now, and will continue to do so for decades or centuries to come. That's a good thing. That's what we want them to do.

I wish that at some point you had cooperated in explaining specifically what your criticism is, what harm you see because of it, and how you would remedy it. You didn't. I've decided those for myself. I invited you to contribute your input if you wanted to have a say in what I conclude is the most likely explanation for what motivated this series of posts, but you declined. That's fine, although hard to understand. I enjoyed it whatever your purpose.

 

[Native]

I don't know what you are telling me here.

Yes I´ve sensed this for a time and as said: I´m giving up on you.