What we can actually test and observe are gravitation’s believed effects.
Gravity [gravitation, not gravity] is somewhere between mysterious and pure fiction - i.e. pseudoscience.
We can observe falling (which is the law/phenomenon of gravity - but NOT gravitation. It is merely believed to cause it...), and we can observe minuscule attraction between some types of matter - but gravitation cannot be measured, observed, understood (3+ centuries and counting :(), or manipulated (required for experiment of any kind). It doesn’t exist outside of equation and is often referred to as a “pseudo-force” (pseudo meaning NOT real) as a result.
Then present a better explanation and validate it with experiments.
I’ve already done that!
In any case, coming up with an alternative is not necessary to criticize, identify, and/or refute existing pseudoscience or incorrect science. For example, gravitation has never been, and cannot be, experimentally verified nor can the belief that it is responsible for weight or the minuscule attraction we measure between some types of matter.
Newton understood this fully, which is why he famously didn’t even feign a hypothesis that could be experimentally verified, let alone go about creating an experiment to test it! He well understood it was folly, “philosophically unsound” - his words [i.e. unscientific], and attributed its mechanism to the christian god. A very, ahem, scientific “theory” indeed!
'Gravity' as a term literally is defined by phenomenological effects. The 'cause' behind these effects (most recently: Higgs Boson) are indeed science fiction and literally everyone admits so (despite what popsci publications would have one believe).
There are a number of these phenomenological terms in science, where the effects are studied but causes not understood, e.g. diffraction, surface tension, etc. all terms of which are defined by their effects. People write huge dissertations on what the causes might be, but nobody really knows.
Falling objects literally demonstrate the PHENOMENA of gravity or gravitation. And yes, gravity has been indeed measured, observed, and understood for many centuries, though the causes are not.
'Gravity' as a term literally is defined by phenomenological effects
That’s right! Gravity is a natural/scientific law [i.e. phenomenon] which is multiple millennia old.
The 'cause' behind these effects
Is fully known and understood, in my view. Since newton added the contrived unscientific fiction of “gravitation” into the mix, it’s been a “mystery” for 3+ centuries. We have made no progress on understanding it whatsoever. I know why. It [gravitation] isn’t real, and it never was.
People write huge dissertations on what the causes might be, but nobody really knows.
Many, if not most, natural laws are this way. They are, and we deal with them. They are the empirical bedrock of science.
Falling objects literally demonstrate the PHENOMENA of gravity or gravitation
Ah, but there’s the rub. They aren’t the same and in science cannot be the same. A natural/scientific law (the phenomenon; gravity) can never be the same as the scientific theory (the experimentally verified cause of the phenomenon; what gravitation is billed as but in no way is) to explain it. That would be circular logic at best, un/anti-scientific, and just plain - to use your parlance - retarded.
And yes, gravity has been indeed measured, observed, and understood for many centuries, though the causes are not.
Yes, gravity has been measured - that’s how scientific laws come to be - measurement. It is thousands of years old.
Gravitation is essentially a pseudoscientific hoax/fraud, and is merely a few centuries old. It’s junk, and wrong. Every physicist worth their salt since newton has loathed him for introducing magic into physics. “Spooky action at a distance” - in newton’s own words, “philosophically unsound” nonsense.
Think I may have found the crux: The word 'gravitation' has a definition, and it doesn't agree with your usage.
"Gravitation" is the noun form of the (nonexistant?) verb for gravity, which would roughly be 'to experience gravity'. The noun 'gravitation', per basic English/latin rules, would be the term describing the noun form of objects experiencing gravity. This word can't be used to describe someone's pet theory without some other modifier (e.g. 'electric', 'coalescing', 'fairy-induced', etc).
There is no magic or anything spooky.
Additionally, nitpicking, but gravity hasn't graduated to 'law' yet, mainly because of the error bounds of big G.
They aren’t the same and in science cannot be the same.
The word's meaning is literally the phenomena. You describe the epistemological problem of reverse engineering the black box of nature, which, though true, dodges that the term 'gravitation' doesn't refer to any theory. You may possibly have miscontrued the 'Theory of Gravitation'. which is a proper noun (and thus requires the words 'theory' and 'of')?
You can test and observe gravity very easily.
So we are taught!
What we can actually test and observe are gravitation’s believed effects.
Gravity [gravitation, not gravity] is somewhere between mysterious and pure fiction - i.e. pseudoscience.
We can observe falling (which is the law/phenomenon of gravity - but NOT gravitation. It is merely believed to cause it...), and we can observe minuscule attraction between some types of matter - but gravitation cannot be measured, observed, understood (3+ centuries and counting :(), or manipulated (required for experiment of any kind). It doesn’t exist outside of equation and is often referred to as a “pseudo-force” (pseudo meaning NOT real) as a result.
Then present a better explanation and validate it with experiments. That is how science works.
Hahahaha. Oh wow. Haven't heard the Electric Universe mentioned in quite a while.
Holy shit - he died? When did that happen?
What a shame.
I’ve already done that!
In any case, coming up with an alternative is not necessary to criticize, identify, and/or refute existing pseudoscience or incorrect science. For example, gravitation has never been, and cannot be, experimentally verified nor can the belief that it is responsible for weight or the minuscule attraction we measure between some types of matter.
Newton understood this fully, which is why he famously didn’t even feign a hypothesis that could be experimentally verified, let alone go about creating an experiment to test it! He well understood it was folly, “philosophically unsound” - his words [i.e. unscientific], and attributed its mechanism to the christian god. A very, ahem, scientific “theory” indeed!
If only!
No you have not. Writing down your rambling thoughts doesn't make a scientific theory.
What is your explanation for the effects that normal people accept are those of gravity?
What is your alternative explanation?
Formulate it and then conduct experiments to confirm it.
Dude you might be actually retarded.
'Gravity' as a term literally is defined by phenomenological effects. The 'cause' behind these effects (most recently: Higgs Boson) are indeed science fiction and literally everyone admits so (despite what popsci publications would have one believe).
There are a number of these phenomenological terms in science, where the effects are studied but causes not understood, e.g. diffraction, surface tension, etc. all terms of which are defined by their effects. People write huge dissertations on what the causes might be, but nobody really knows.
Falling objects literally demonstrate the PHENOMENA of gravity or gravitation. And yes, gravity has been indeed measured, observed, and understood for many centuries, though the causes are not.
That’s right! Gravity is a natural/scientific law [i.e. phenomenon] which is multiple millennia old.
Is fully known and understood, in my view. Since newton added the contrived unscientific fiction of “gravitation” into the mix, it’s been a “mystery” for 3+ centuries. We have made no progress on understanding it whatsoever. I know why. It [gravitation] isn’t real, and it never was.
Many, if not most, natural laws are this way. They are, and we deal with them. They are the empirical bedrock of science.
Ah, but there’s the rub. They aren’t the same and in science cannot be the same. A natural/scientific law (the phenomenon; gravity) can never be the same as the scientific theory (the experimentally verified cause of the phenomenon; what gravitation is billed as but in no way is) to explain it. That would be circular logic at best, un/anti-scientific, and just plain - to use your parlance - retarded.
Yes, gravity has been measured - that’s how scientific laws come to be - measurement. It is thousands of years old.
Gravitation is essentially a pseudoscientific hoax/fraud, and is merely a few centuries old. It’s junk, and wrong. Every physicist worth their salt since newton has loathed him for introducing magic into physics. “Spooky action at a distance” - in newton’s own words, “philosophically unsound” nonsense.
Think I may have found the crux: The word 'gravitation' has a definition, and it doesn't agree with your usage.
"Gravitation" is the noun form of the (nonexistant?) verb for gravity, which would roughly be 'to experience gravity'. The noun 'gravitation', per basic English/latin rules, would be the term describing the noun form of objects experiencing gravity. This word can't be used to describe someone's pet theory without some other modifier (e.g. 'electric', 'coalescing', 'fairy-induced', etc).
There is no magic or anything spooky.
Additionally, nitpicking, but gravity hasn't graduated to 'law' yet, mainly because of the error bounds of big G.
The word's meaning is literally the phenomena. You describe the epistemological problem of reverse engineering the black box of nature, which, though true, dodges that the term 'gravitation' doesn't refer to any theory. You may possibly have miscontrued the 'Theory of Gravitation'. which is a proper noun (and thus requires the words 'theory' and 'of')?