'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')?
Think I may have found the crux: The word 'gravitation' has a definition, and it doesn't agree with your usage.
We are not discussing a dictionary, and depending on source there are a great many definitions for “gravitation” available to choose from.
I think i have made it pretty explicit how i am using the word. That’s all we need for communication! If you don’t understand how i am defining gravity and gravitation in this conversation (or why!), please just ask!
There is no magic or anything spooky.
The “spooky” reference is something einstein said about quantum entanglement - it was an allusion. As for magic, yes gravitation is distinctly magical (i.e. contrived fiction and not science in any way). If it existed, it would be capable of routinely doing things impossible for all other known sources of energy. The ordering of the cosmos we observe - alone - is absolutely impossible with the law (invalid theory in actuality, called a law erroneously) of gravitation. Good thing it is magic ;)
Additionally, nitpicking, but gravity hasn't graduated to 'law' yet, mainly because of the error bounds of big G.
Interesting, as it has been taught as the law of gravitation for centuries... Perhaps it’s been recently demoted?
Gravitation can never be a law in my view. The phenomenon of falling already has a name - gravity. It is the law. Gravitation is the contrived fiction misrepresented as a theory to explain that phenomenon/law.
Scientific laws are only “what is”. They can never include cause - which is what theory is for. it should go without saying, but obviously the scientific law and theory cannot be the same.
The word's meaning is literally the phenomena.
Right! Gravity is a known phenomenon [i.e. law] which has existed for multiple millennia.
dodges that the term 'gravitation' doesn't refer to any theory
Not at all! I am acutely aware of that and making explicit mention of that. It is central to my criticism.
You may possibly have miscontrued the 'Theory of Gravitation'
In a scientific context, there is no “theory of gravitation”. Gravitation is billed as a law and sold/taught as a theory [explanation for law] when it isn’t one.
At best, gravitation was intended to be a placeholder for a real theory that would come one day, but if you understand it as newton did - you would know why that isn’t possible. Thus the mystery of why 0 progress has been made on understanding this magical pseudo-force over 3+ centuries and counting is solved. It doesn’t exist to discover or experimentally validate.
It is important for our purposes to be clear on definitions.
there are a great many definitions for “gravitation” available to choose from.
I am only aware of the correct one, which is that massive objects attract other massive objects relative to their mass. This is only a definition, and fits the definition of 'definition', whereas theories (e.g. Higgs, field mediation, etc) are proposed mechanisms.
If it existed, it would be capable of routinely doing things impossible [...]
Disregarding your qualifier at the end of this statement, the problem is that it does exactly this, and nobody knows why - fun fact. Another fun fact: gravity must act faster than the speed of light, as light takes 8.3 minutes to reach us, and it was proven decades ago that orbiting systems are unstable beyond just a couple epochs if the bodies orbit 'afterimages' of each other (i.e. if you make the systems obey the 'speed limit').
I am gathering that you've clued into the fact that gravitation does in fact problems, but aren't understanding the actual problems, nor their implications, and thus went into left field.
Thus the mystery of why 0 progress has been made on understanding this magical pseudo-force over 3+ centuries and counting is solved. It doesn’t exist to discover or experimentally validate.
Again, you've clued into a problem, but drew conclusions too early. You are right that there has been no significant progress, but it isn't just gravity. Every major physics-related field has had no significant progress. We still know nothing more about electricity, light, magnetism, any of the other major forces, radioactivity, etc, and there are a number of major problems still in chemistry as well. If your conclusions were correctly drawn, then the rest of the disciplines would be empty as well, but we know they are not - instead, they have been deliberately (((stifled))). Ask for more if interested.
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')?
We are not discussing a dictionary, and depending on source there are a great many definitions for “gravitation” available to choose from.
I think i have made it pretty explicit how i am using the word. That’s all we need for communication! If you don’t understand how i am defining gravity and gravitation in this conversation (or why!), please just ask!
The “spooky” reference is something einstein said about quantum entanglement - it was an allusion. As for magic, yes gravitation is distinctly magical (i.e. contrived fiction and not science in any way). If it existed, it would be capable of routinely doing things impossible for all other known sources of energy. The ordering of the cosmos we observe - alone - is absolutely impossible with the law (invalid theory in actuality, called a law erroneously) of gravitation. Good thing it is magic ;)
Interesting, as it has been taught as the law of gravitation for centuries... Perhaps it’s been recently demoted?
Gravitation can never be a law in my view. The phenomenon of falling already has a name - gravity. It is the law. Gravitation is the contrived fiction misrepresented as a theory to explain that phenomenon/law.
Scientific laws are only “what is”. They can never include cause - which is what theory is for. it should go without saying, but obviously the scientific law and theory cannot be the same.
Right! Gravity is a known phenomenon [i.e. law] which has existed for multiple millennia.
Not at all! I am acutely aware of that and making explicit mention of that. It is central to my criticism.
In a scientific context, there is no “theory of gravitation”. Gravitation is billed as a law and sold/taught as a theory [explanation for law] when it isn’t one.
At best, gravitation was intended to be a placeholder for a real theory that would come one day, but if you understand it as newton did - you would know why that isn’t possible. Thus the mystery of why 0 progress has been made on understanding this magical pseudo-force over 3+ centuries and counting is solved. It doesn’t exist to discover or experimentally validate.
Pardon the delays, busy here.
It is important for our purposes to be clear on definitions.
I am only aware of the correct one, which is that massive objects attract other massive objects relative to their mass. This is only a definition, and fits the definition of 'definition', whereas theories (e.g. Higgs, field mediation, etc) are proposed mechanisms.
Disregarding your qualifier at the end of this statement, the problem is that it does exactly this, and nobody knows why - fun fact. Another fun fact: gravity must act faster than the speed of light, as light takes 8.3 minutes to reach us, and it was proven decades ago that orbiting systems are unstable beyond just a couple epochs if the bodies orbit 'afterimages' of each other (i.e. if you make the systems obey the 'speed limit').
I am gathering that you've clued into the fact that gravitation does in fact problems, but aren't understanding the actual problems, nor their implications, and thus went into left field.
Again, you've clued into a problem, but drew conclusions too early. You are right that there has been no significant progress, but it isn't just gravity. Every major physics-related field has had no significant progress. We still know nothing more about electricity, light, magnetism, any of the other major forces, radioactivity, etc, and there are a number of major problems still in chemistry as well. If your conclusions were correctly drawn, then the rest of the disciplines would be empty as well, but we know they are not - instead, they have been deliberately (((stifled))). Ask for more if interested.