Theory of Everything

[Native]

I asked what does *your* hypothesis predict?

You´re simply jumping fences when asked logical questions.

Come on! What are your explanations and predictions of this:

How does your *gravity* know to work equently on two different weights, when the *gaseous compositions* are removed?

A hint for you: Try to skip your *number acrobatics* for a second and use your logical and philosophic analytic senses.

 

[Native]

And the point is that light *doesn't* interact with the 'extra matter', which is why is is called 'dark'.

Of course light doesn´t interact with something which isn´t there.

Actually, I said nothing at all about either planetary motions or galactic motions. I simply asked for *one* prediction on *your* model that is accurate to 2 decimal places.

You fails to connect you´re assumed forces in general. That´s all.

 

[PureX]

I suspect that the fundamental cause(s) and function(s) of existence are far more bizarre and inexplicable that we can even imagine. Given the way we currently approach the question (materially), I doubt that we can ever gain what we seek.

 

[Polymath257]

You´re simply jumping fences when asked logical questions.

Come on! What are your explanations and predictions of this:

How does your *gravity* know to work equently on two different weights, when the *gaseous compositions* are removed?

A hint for you: Try to skip your *number acrobatics* for a second and use your logical and philosophic analytic senses.

Gravity works between *any* two masses. The gasses in the air are irrelevant except as an addtional *frictional* force.

Here's a hint for you: try to actually make a prediction of what will happen in a specific situation and to 2 decimal place accuracy.

If you cannot do at least that, you simply don't have anything to say *scientifically*.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course light doesn´t interact with something which isn´t there.

You fails to connect you´re assumed forces in general. That´s all.

In other words, you have nothing. Only criticism and no substance.

 

[Native]

Gravity works between *any* two masses. The gasses in the air are irrelevant except as an addtional *frictional* force.

The lack of logical senses amazes me.

You´re referring to a gravity experiment in an *air-emptied* vacuum chamber where diferrent weighted objects falls with a similar velocity - compared to different velocities out in the real nature.

And then you state that *gaseous elements* have no significant importance!?

How does your *gravity* know to work equently on two different weights when the *gaseous compositions* are removed - and differently when the same objects are falling down from a heigth in the free nature?

Get to the logical buttom of this question before demanding anything more from me.

 

[Polymath257]

The lack of logical senses amazes me.

You´re referring to a gravity experiment in an *air-emtied* vacuum chamber where diferrent weighted objects falls with a similar velocity - compared to different velocities out in the real nature.

And then you state that *gaseous elements* have no significant importance!?

Once again, the gas in the air produces a frictional force. That will slightly delay the body with a larger cross section. But the frictional effect is very small for most larger bodies.

Two forces: gravity and friction. The total produces the observed acceleration.

If there is a vacuum, there is no friction, so only gravity is relevant.

Since F=GMm/r^2 and F=ma, we get that a=GM/r^2 is the same for any mass.

How does your *gravity* know to work equently on two different weights when the *gaseous compositions* are removed - and differently when the same objects are falling down from a heigth in the free nature?

It works the same in both situations. But, when there is a gas, there is an *extra* force of friction from that gas.

Get to the logical buttom of this question before demanding anything more from me, please.

It seems that you are looking for a mechanism. Why?

 

[Native]

It seems that you are looking for a mechanism. Why?

Because you inconsistently refers to an important experiment for you, in where an empty chamber plays a significant gravitation role - and at the same time you state the empty chamber experiment has no really importance.

Thats why . . . no logics. You can apply your experimental idea out in empty space and see what your *occult agency force* says to this experiment.

 

[Polymath257]

Because you inconsistently refers to an important experiment for you, in where an empty chamber plays a significant gravitation role - and at the same time you state the empty chamber experiment has no really importance.

Thats why . . . no logics. You can apply your experimental idea out in empty space and see what your *occult agency force* says to this experiment.

No, I am eliminating the *extra* role the air has by removing it. That leaves gravity as the only force left. Air will hinder motion because of friction. We remove that to determine the force of gravity alone without extras.

In space, the acceleration due to gravity is exactly as the force law states.

Now, what does *your* hypothesis predict and why? YOU are the one that claims that air pressure is what causes things to fall. So, if you eliminate air pressure, there should be no falling, right?

 

[gnostic]

The lack of logical senses amazes me.


Get to the logical buttom of this question before demanding anything more from me.

That’s funny. All you have done is evade Polymath257’s questions to develop a hypothesis that predict the observations/evidence with some accuracy, and then accuse everyone who disagree with your nonsense as not being logical.

The only person I see deprive of logic, is you and your argument.

 

[gnostic]

I suspect that the fundamental cause(s) and function(s) of existence are far more bizarre and inexplicable that we can even imagine. Given the way we currently approach the question (materially), I doubt that we can ever gain what we seek.

But the approach of existence through metaphysics (or any other philosophies for that matter) without verifiable and testable evidence, is even more ultimately worthless and wrong, because they can never make their logic meet with reality.

Using logic and reasoning alone (reasoning without evidence) - in whatever philosophies you may follow - are not enough to reality, let alone existence.

 

[leroy]

I suspect that the fundamental cause(s) and function(s) of existence are far more bizarre and inexplicable that we can even imagine. Given the way we currently approach the question (materially), I doubt that we can ever gain what we seek.

I´ll say pretty much the opposite, if materialism where true we wouldn’t expect to have a nice and elegant “theory of everything” …. If naturalism is true ¿why would realty be explainable with math and equations?

As a theist I would predict that fundamentally reality is simple, elegant and explainable with math and equations

Atheists should predict the opposite, reality should de messy chaotic and hard (if not impossible)to describe with math.

I´ll simply make some popcorn, enjoy the show, and see who made the correct prediction.

 

[leroy]

For decades, theoretical physicists have been trying two fundamental physics theories - General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics - into a single encompassing theory - the Theory of Everything.

Do you think it is possible, one day, to combine them and to solve this problem?

Or is impossible?

Yes, one day this problem will be solved. And I predict that new fine tuning problems will emerge with this solution.

Atheist would predict that a “Theory of everything” would solve some FT problems

Only time will tell us who made the correct prediction.

 

[Native]

No, I am eliminating the *extra* role the air has by removing it. That leaves gravity as the only force left. Air will hinder motion because of friction. We remove that to determine the force of gravity alone without extras.

Why are you removing the air equation at all?

Why don´t you consider the entire atmosphere on Earth as a force?

You know, the one friction force which can repel a spaceraft if the entry angel is too flat? Or to make it burn to atomic smitherines if the angel is too steep?

THERE you can speak of *friction forces* compared to your silly little vacuum chamber.

 

[Polymath257]

Why are you removing the air equation at all?

Because YOU were the one that said things fall because of air pressure. A good test of that idea is to remove the air pressure and see if things still fall, right?

Why don´t you consider the entire atmosphere on Earth as a force?

The atmosphere provides pressure, but that is usually balanced and has little net effect. Unless, that is, you are in a hot air balloon, in which case the force of buoyancy is relevant.

You know, the one friction force which can repel a spaceraft if the entry angel is too flat? Or to make it burn to atomic smitherines if the angel is too steep?

Ever hear of skipping a stone? it's a similar effect if you come in too flat. But, just like the stone, coming in steep produces a different effect. Spacecraft are also moving at high enough speeds the frictional effect is enough to heat things up significantly. Not slowly, like a mere airplane.

THERE you can speak of *friction forces* compared to your silly little vacuum chamber.

Which you consistently ignore the opportunity to show your ideas have substance: what will happen to something in a vacuum chamber? Will it fall or not? Why?

 

[Native]

The only person I see deprive of logic, is you and your argument.

If you had some logics, you´ve seen it otherwise .

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can´t help if you miss to make the connections whith replies and answers.

Perhaps your explanation was simply very confusing.
Did that option cross your mind?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

BRAVO! You´re on the right Mytho-Astronomical-Cosmological track here

You make no sense.

That ancient cultures deified things like the sun, moon, stars and wind is expected from primitive cultures that have no clue what those things really are.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You´re simply jumping fences when asked logical questions.

Come on! What are your explanations and predictions of this:

How does your *gravity* know to work equently on two different weights, when the *gaseous compositions* are removed?

A hint for you: Try to skip your *number acrobatics* for a second and use your logical and philosophic analytic senses.

Your extreme dodging of @Polymath257 's fair question, is noted.

 

[Native]

Perhaps your explanation was simply very confusing.
Did that option cross your mind?

As my native tongue is Danish, it ALWAYS crosses my mind. Perhaps you didn´t take your time to ponder over the context?