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!
Lol. You mean you can’t believe i have done that! More blind faith from the supposed science lover? When a scientist is asked if his shoes are tied, he looks down before answering.
Writing down your rambling thoughts doesn't make a scientific theory.
I agree! Only experiment can bear theory, which is one of many reasons why gravitation never was, and continues to not be today 3+ centuries later, scientific theory! It’s just erroneously/disingenuously misrepresented as such through standardized “education” from childhood.
What is your explanation for the effects that normal people accept are those of gravity?
We can discuss that if you like, but you should recognize how silly and illogical your position is. Demanding a replacement for something before you will even consider it is wrong is stupid and unscientific.
Why can’t you recognize/determine that something taught as science is incorrect without discovering an alternative first? Furthermore, why would one even seek to discover an alternative unless they first suspect/recognize that their current explanation is wrong? One necessarily comes before the other and is the driving engine of both knowledge and all of science. Have you given that any thought?
What is your alternative explanation?
Explanations are cheap - they are merely mythology. What matters is validation. Science is about experiment!
Abandoning the scientific method (newton wasn’t really a scientist, he is just misrepresented that way for modern scientism idolatry purposes) is what got us into this mess and introduced the unscientific fiction/mythology of gravitation into physics in the first place!
The explanation is simple, demonstrable, and experimentally validatable.
Weight is an intrinsic property of all matter. It is not imbued by magical fields of any kind.
What (primarily/chiefly) governs wether an object will rise (levity), fall (gravity), or neither (neutrality) is the relationship/interplay between the weight of the object and the weight of the media it displaces - nothing more. Archimedes had gravity (a scientific law millennia old) most all figured out 2+ millennia ago.
Formulate it and then conduct experiments to confirm it.
I have already done that! But i’m happy to go over it with you at length if you wish!
This tries to reinvent the wheel. People originally believed that, until we realized that weight varies both by location on the Earth and proximity to it, which is why a different intrinsic property was proposed, Mass, and weight is now defined as the product of both mass and the local gravitational acceleration.
What governs wether an object will rise [...] between the weight of the object and the weight of the media it displaces
Two problems with that, both of which have been already rehashed at length. The first is that buoyancy actually requires the acceleration of gravity to be present, making your argument circular.
The second is epistimological, basically boiling down to the metrology of what you are actually measuring. The problem is that weight doesn't change in vacuum (which btw is how gravity is measured - precisely timed falling mirrors in a vaccum chamber), and that buoyant forces can be measured separately from gravitational forces.
newton wasn’t really a scientist, he is just misrepresented that way for modern scientism idolatry
This part wasn't substance, but it is still wrong. He literally went against everything popular in his day. His most well-researched topic is literally him discovering that our timeline has been forged by jews. See Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms, Amended. He's considered a hero now, but was a heretic in his time.
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.
Lol. You mean you can’t believe i have done that! More blind faith from the supposed science lover? When a scientist is asked if his shoes are tied, he looks down before answering.
I agree! Only experiment can bear theory, which is one of many reasons why gravitation never was, and continues to not be today 3+ centuries later, scientific theory! It’s just erroneously/disingenuously misrepresented as such through standardized “education” from childhood.
We can discuss that if you like, but you should recognize how silly and illogical your position is. Demanding a replacement for something before you will even consider it is wrong is stupid and unscientific.
Why can’t you recognize/determine that something taught as science is incorrect without discovering an alternative first? Furthermore, why would one even seek to discover an alternative unless they first suspect/recognize that their current explanation is wrong? One necessarily comes before the other and is the driving engine of both knowledge and all of science. Have you given that any thought?
Explanations are cheap - they are merely mythology. What matters is validation. Science is about experiment!
Abandoning the scientific method (newton wasn’t really a scientist, he is just misrepresented that way for modern scientism idolatry purposes) is what got us into this mess and introduced the unscientific fiction/mythology of gravitation into physics in the first place!
The explanation is simple, demonstrable, and experimentally validatable.
Weight is an intrinsic property of all matter. It is not imbued by magical fields of any kind.
What (primarily/chiefly) governs wether an object will rise (levity), fall (gravity), or neither (neutrality) is the relationship/interplay between the weight of the object and the weight of the media it displaces - nothing more. Archimedes had gravity (a scientific law millennia old) most all figured out 2+ millennia ago.
I have already done that! But i’m happy to go over it with you at length if you wish!
Focusing on the only substance in this post:
This tries to reinvent the wheel. People originally believed that, until we realized that weight varies both by location on the Earth and proximity to it, which is why a different intrinsic property was proposed, Mass, and weight is now defined as the product of both mass and the local gravitational acceleration.
Two problems with that, both of which have been already rehashed at length. The first is that buoyancy actually requires the acceleration of gravity to be present, making your argument circular.
The second is epistimological, basically boiling down to the metrology of what you are actually measuring. The problem is that weight doesn't change in vacuum (which btw is how gravity is measured - precisely timed falling mirrors in a vaccum chamber), and that buoyant forces can be measured separately from gravitational forces.
This part wasn't substance, but it is still wrong. He literally went against everything popular in his day. His most well-researched topic is literally him discovering that our timeline has been forged by jews. See Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms, Amended. He's considered a hero now, but was a heretic in his time.
So, present your hypothesis and the documentation of your experiments.
Why don't you?