There are no experiments which contradict my, historical, view. If you know of one to discuss, please mention it!
Clarify your view, and I will suggest as I can. Originally, I was going to point out that buoyancy is measured, and cannot explain the phenomenon, as it originally sounded like you were going to ascribe the mechanism of gravity to buoyancy.
It seems that way at first glance, and is often taught that way [...] there are some conceptual parallels though.
Has what you are describing ever been taught? It's the first I've heard of it, and I studied these disciplines extensively.
Mass, like gravitation, is entirely fictional. It does not exist outside of equation and does not refer to any quantity of matter.
It can't be known to be real, but this doesn't make it unreal, as it can't be known to be fictional either. It is our proposed model for the inner workings of the universe, and can't be known to match or not. Further, it directly relates a quantity of matter to its weight, as that is its definition.
It is NOT coincidence that when combined they return to the real and measured weight they began as.
Again, you ascribe significance to actions in equations. There literally is no meaning to what happens in the equations. Since we can only measure weight, mass is derived (but proposed to be what is truly intrinsic), and to as-you-say 'recombine' has no special significance when you solve in the opposite direction.
The concept of matter is ancient. Mass is attributed to newton. Who do you think spoke of mass prior to the concept of gravitation existing to imbue it, magically, with weight?
The concept of mass is similarly ancient, though was only called such during Keplerian times. Just as the ancients proposed there must be some indivisible form of matter (atom), they proposed this matter must have weight, just as the whole does, and that something must be causing the same amounts of different matter to have different weights, which is what we now call mass. I'll look - I think even Aristotle spoke on this not-named concept. Kepler formalized this, and only much later did density come along, during when gas physics were being on (I say this as I suspect this is where you are heading).
and it is stupid now for the same reasons
I suppose this needs proper explanation. Generally, scientific principles are overturned by others, and nothing has overturned this one. Honestly, I don't even understand what you fault with it, except possibly how it was originated, but this can't be an argument against it.
That’s a silly thing to suspect. Real things are all measurable!
Also a naive view. Clouds are real; how do you define their bounds, given only boundaries are measurable? It's volume can't be measured, and anything derived can also not be measured (density, composition, etc). This is just a hypothetical to explain the issue here.
Another example, the electric force field is real, but measuring it actually posed a huge problem for early scientists (and still does - you can't measure it without affecting it, for one).
[a thing] does not demonstrate the existence of the fictional entity contrived to explain it. It just isn’t how science works. If you want to prove that gravitation is real [...]
Proving realness of any natural mechanism is impossible, and why nobody ever attempts that. All that can be known is falseness, and thus why science progresses by overturning older proposed mechanisms with newer, (ideally) less false ones).
minuscule attraction between some types of matter is not that, that is merely attraction
Further, it should be noted that the attraction you describe is literally what gravitation is - attraction between matter that is proportional to mass.
and people, in general, struggle with [...] the difference between useful and correct.
Laymen, sure, but a number of disciplines are explicitly taught the difference. Some examples: physical scientists, lawyers, etc. Remember that 'correctness' can't be known in the physical sciences, so usefulness is all that we have.
I’m not aware of this. What are you talking about?
His 'calculations of a flat plate', where he 'proves' that heavier than air flight was impossible, since lift can never exceed drag, and lift/drag both have their maxima at 45 degrees angle of incidence. He was technically right, and we still don't know why wings work (produce more lift than drag - overunity, essentially).
In what way did he clean up the chronology and where/when did you hear about this?
Basically, we have no idea what year this is, and Newton, without explicitly saying so, was excluding certain jewish chronological works that caused misplaced eras.
Fair enough. The law [phenomenon] of gravity is caused by density, but not the density you are likely thinking of.
Things only fall because they are heavier than the volume of media they displace. The density is weight density, and the interplay between the weight of the object and the weight of the media displaced by it is what causes gravity, levity, and neutrality.
There are no experiments (that i am aware of anyway!) that contradict this, or support your view that “gravitation” is in fact responsible for those phenomena. In fact, the only experiments that exist regarding gravity show plainly that the interplay mentioned above is certainly the cause (experimentally verified).
Before we go too far down the rabbit hole, i would like to clarify that an experiment is NOT an observation. Many things presented as experiments, especially in regards to gravitation, are in fact - merely observations. The cavendish observation/procedure is probably the quintessential one. It is in no way an experiment, was never referred to as an experiment by anyone involved with it, and does not even involve a hypothesis.
Experiments are hypothesis tests. They, provisionally, validate or invalidate a valid hypothesis by establishing a causal relationship between at least one IV and DV. Hopefully we can agree on this scientific definition, and discard the colloquial erroneous/unscientific ones.
Has what you are describing ever been taught?
Certainly! Has it been taught by anyone other than me? I assume so, though it would be surprising if they used the exact same terminology.
It can't be known to be real, but this doesn't make it unreal, as it can't be known to be fictional either
Things we make up are, by default, not real. Doubly so in science! It has to be known/demonstrated to be real and measured in order to be part of empiricism [aka science].
Again, you ascribe significance to actions in equations.
You are misunderstanding me. There is no significance to fictional terms in an equation which describe things which do not exist in reality.
The concept of mass is similarly ancient, though was only called such during Keplerian times.
Again, that mass could not possibly be the mass we use today. That is a synonym for matter. There is no magical field in keplerian times to bestow weight to base mass. Please let me know if you disagree!
and only much later did density come along, during when gas physics were being on (I say this as I suspect this is where you are heading).
Density is at least as old as archimedes, and likely much older. The density you are talking about, mass density, could obviously only exist after newton.
Generally, scientific principles are overturned by others, and nothing has overturned this one
Lol, making things up isn’t science. Proposing and believing stupid things, then teaching it en masse to scores of students is NOT science. Epicurus never established any scientific principle. There is nothing to overturn. Ergo, with newton’s invocation of it, there is also nothing to overturn.
except possibly how it was originated, but this can't be an argument against it.
Of course it can, and should! When we make things up / guess, instead of practicing rigorous science, we are essentially guaranteed to be wrong, and are engaging in mythology. Of course it isn’t completely impossible that we could guess and turn out to be correct, but this would be both extremely rare and require extraordinary validation.
This is just a hypothetical to explain the issue here.
I didn’t say it was always easy/convenient to measure them! I just said that everything real can be measured. It’s a fundamental axiom of science, and required for it (empiricism). Yes, you can measure the volume and weight of a cloud. No, it isn't easy or convenient.
Proving realness of any natural mechanism is impossible
It is done through experiment. You hypothesize the mechanism and then experimentally validate it to confirm/refute that hypothesis. I agree it isn’t foolproof, is provisional, and historically is doomed to be overturned - but it is certainly (provisionally) possible.
All that can be known is falseness
Science is comprised only of partial, provisional, positive statements. Negative statements require the totality of knowledge to verify. This is the cause of clarke’s first law.
it should be noted that the attraction you describe is literally what gravitation is
So you believe, and i do not! That is the rub! Science has no place for belief, except limitedly in generation of hypothesis.
so usefulness is all that we have
Perhaps, but it is important to be aware of the distinction all the same! Conflating the two together is a grave mistake. I agree with sagan on this point, that “correct” is absolutely determined as best as possible - yet still provisionally - by experiment in science.
His 'calculations of a flat plate', where he 'proves' that heavier than air flight was impossible
Interesting! So not so much a “contribution” as an impediment to powered flight, but interesting all the same. Clarke’s first law strikes again!
Basically, we have no idea what year this is, and Newton, without explicitly saying so, was excluding certain jewish chronological works that caused misplaced eras.
Interesting! And thanks for the link - i’ll take a look. It seems newton may be a source for our modern “phantom time hypothesis” after all!
Clarify your view, and I will suggest as I can. Originally, I was going to point out that buoyancy is measured, and cannot explain the phenomenon, as it originally sounded like you were going to ascribe the mechanism of gravity to buoyancy.
Has what you are describing ever been taught? It's the first I've heard of it, and I studied these disciplines extensively.
It can't be known to be real, but this doesn't make it unreal, as it can't be known to be fictional either. It is our proposed model for the inner workings of the universe, and can't be known to match or not. Further, it directly relates a quantity of matter to its weight, as that is its definition.
Again, you ascribe significance to actions in equations. There literally is no meaning to what happens in the equations. Since we can only measure weight, mass is derived (but proposed to be what is truly intrinsic), and to as-you-say 'recombine' has no special significance when you solve in the opposite direction.
The concept of mass is similarly ancient, though was only called such during Keplerian times. Just as the ancients proposed there must be some indivisible form of matter (atom), they proposed this matter must have weight, just as the whole does, and that something must be causing the same amounts of different matter to have different weights, which is what we now call mass. I'll look - I think even Aristotle spoke on this not-named concept. Kepler formalized this, and only much later did density come along, during when gas physics were being on (I say this as I suspect this is where you are heading).
I suppose this needs proper explanation. Generally, scientific principles are overturned by others, and nothing has overturned this one. Honestly, I don't even understand what you fault with it, except possibly how it was originated, but this can't be an argument against it.
Also a naive view. Clouds are real; how do you define their bounds, given only boundaries are measurable? It's volume can't be measured, and anything derived can also not be measured (density, composition, etc). This is just a hypothetical to explain the issue here.
Another example, the electric force field is real, but measuring it actually posed a huge problem for early scientists (and still does - you can't measure it without affecting it, for one).
Proving realness of any natural mechanism is impossible, and why nobody ever attempts that. All that can be known is falseness, and thus why science progresses by overturning older proposed mechanisms with newer, (ideally) less false ones).
Further, it should be noted that the attraction you describe is literally what gravitation is - attraction between matter that is proportional to mass.
Laymen, sure, but a number of disciplines are explicitly taught the difference. Some examples: physical scientists, lawyers, etc. Remember that 'correctness' can't be known in the physical sciences, so usefulness is all that we have.
His 'calculations of a flat plate', where he 'proves' that heavier than air flight was impossible, since lift can never exceed drag, and lift/drag both have their maxima at 45 degrees angle of incidence. He was technically right, and we still don't know why wings work (produce more lift than drag - overunity, essentially).
I stumbled upon it while studying problems with chronology myself. You can find his multiple works on it here - it was his biggest work by word count: https://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/catalogue/record/THEM00090
Basically, we have no idea what year this is, and Newton, without explicitly saying so, was excluding certain jewish chronological works that caused misplaced eras.
Fair enough. The law [phenomenon] of gravity is caused by density, but not the density you are likely thinking of.
Things only fall because they are heavier than the volume of media they displace. The density is weight density, and the interplay between the weight of the object and the weight of the media displaced by it is what causes gravity, levity, and neutrality.
There are no experiments (that i am aware of anyway!) that contradict this, or support your view that “gravitation” is in fact responsible for those phenomena. In fact, the only experiments that exist regarding gravity show plainly that the interplay mentioned above is certainly the cause (experimentally verified).
Before we go too far down the rabbit hole, i would like to clarify that an experiment is NOT an observation. Many things presented as experiments, especially in regards to gravitation, are in fact - merely observations. The cavendish observation/procedure is probably the quintessential one. It is in no way an experiment, was never referred to as an experiment by anyone involved with it, and does not even involve a hypothesis.
Experiments are hypothesis tests. They, provisionally, validate or invalidate a valid hypothesis by establishing a causal relationship between at least one IV and DV. Hopefully we can agree on this scientific definition, and discard the colloquial erroneous/unscientific ones.
Certainly! Has it been taught by anyone other than me? I assume so, though it would be surprising if they used the exact same terminology.
Things we make up are, by default, not real. Doubly so in science! It has to be known/demonstrated to be real and measured in order to be part of empiricism [aka science].
You are misunderstanding me. There is no significance to fictional terms in an equation which describe things which do not exist in reality.
Again, that mass could not possibly be the mass we use today. That is a synonym for matter. There is no magical field in keplerian times to bestow weight to base mass. Please let me know if you disagree!
Density is at least as old as archimedes, and likely much older. The density you are talking about, mass density, could obviously only exist after newton.
Lol, making things up isn’t science. Proposing and believing stupid things, then teaching it en masse to scores of students is NOT science. Epicurus never established any scientific principle. There is nothing to overturn. Ergo, with newton’s invocation of it, there is also nothing to overturn.
Of course it can, and should! When we make things up / guess, instead of practicing rigorous science, we are essentially guaranteed to be wrong, and are engaging in mythology. Of course it isn’t completely impossible that we could guess and turn out to be correct, but this would be both extremely rare and require extraordinary validation.
I didn’t say it was always easy/convenient to measure them! I just said that everything real can be measured. It’s a fundamental axiom of science, and required for it (empiricism). Yes, you can measure the volume and weight of a cloud. No, it isn't easy or convenient.
It is done through experiment. You hypothesize the mechanism and then experimentally validate it to confirm/refute that hypothesis. I agree it isn’t foolproof, is provisional, and historically is doomed to be overturned - but it is certainly (provisionally) possible.
Science is comprised only of partial, provisional, positive statements. Negative statements require the totality of knowledge to verify. This is the cause of clarke’s first law.
So you believe, and i do not! That is the rub! Science has no place for belief, except limitedly in generation of hypothesis.
Perhaps, but it is important to be aware of the distinction all the same! Conflating the two together is a grave mistake. I agree with sagan on this point, that “correct” is absolutely determined as best as possible - yet still provisionally - by experiment in science.
Interesting! So not so much a “contribution” as an impediment to powered flight, but interesting all the same. Clarke’s first law strikes again!
Interesting! And thanks for the link - i’ll take a look. It seems newton may be a source for our modern “phantom time hypothesis” after all!